•m 


Love,  MARiiiAi.E,  and  Divorce, 


The  Sovereignty  of  the  Individual. 


A  DISCUSSION 


BETWBEN 


HENRY  JAMES,  HORACE  GREELEY, 

AND 

STEPHEN  PEARL  ANDREWS. 


INCLUDING  TDE  FINAL  REPLIES  OF  MR.  ANDREWS,  REJECTED   BY  THE  NEW 

YORK  TRIBUNE,  AND  A  SUBSEQUENT   DISCUSSION,  OCCURRING 

TWENTY  YEARS   LATER,   BETWEEN  MR.  JAMES 

AND  MR.  ANDREWS. 


BOSTON,  MASS.  : 

BENJ.    K.    TUCKKH,    PUBLISHER. 

1889. 


Gift  oi 
S.  Jay  Levey 


LOVE,  MARRIAGE,  AND  DIVORCE, 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

The  columns  of  the  New  York  "Tribune"  have  been  abruptly,  though  not  alto- 
getlier  unexpectedly,  closed  to  nie,  in  the  midst  of  a  discussion  upon  the  subjects 
named  in  the  title-page  to  this  pamphlet,  which  had  been  courted  and  invited  by 
Mr.  Horace  Greeley,  tlie  responsible  editor  of  that  inlluential  journal.  After  de- 
taining my  I'eplies  to  himself  and  to  Mr.  James  from  four  to  eight  weeks,  Mr. 
Greeley  at  length  returns  tliem  to  me,  accompanied  by  a  private  note,  approving 
my  criticisms  upon  Mr.  James,  but  assigning  reasons  for  the  declination  of  botli  of 
my  communications. 

The  ostensible  grounds  for  excluding  my  comments  upon  positions  assumed  and 
arguments  in  sui>port  of  these  positions  are,  first,  that  my  replies  "do  not  get  the 
discussion  one  incli  ahead."  I  obviously  could  not  put  the  discussion  ahead  by 
stating  and  developing  new  positions,  until  I  liad  answered  those  assumed  by  my 
opponent.  Whether  the  real  reason  for  "burking"  ray  rejoinder  was  that  I  did 
not  do  the  last  well  enough,  or  that  I  did  it  rather  too  effectively  and  conclusively 
for  my  continued  popularity  at  the  "Tribune"  office,  so  many  readers  as  I  shall 
now  be  able  to  reach,  with  some  little  industry  on  my  part,  will  have  the  opportun- 
ity to  decide.  Second,  that  expressions  are  employed  by  me  which  are  offensive  to 
the  public  sense  of  decency,  and  especially  that  the  medical  illustration  of  my  lady 
correspondent  is  unfit  for  publication.  I  propose  now  to  publish  the  rejected  re- 
plies as  written,  that  the  world  may  judge  whether  anything  I  have  said  or  em- 
bodied in  them  is  of  a  nature  which  might  reasonal)ly  be  supposed  likely  "to  dash 
the  modesty"  of  Mr.  Greeley  or  tlie  habitual  readers  of  the  "Tribune." 

The  defenders  of  slavery,  and  the  fastidious  aristocratic  classes  everywhere,  make 
a  similar  objection  to  that  here  urged,  to  displaying  the  unsightly  accompaniments 
of  the  systems  they  uphold.  Aluch,  however,  as  I  dislike  to  have  my  feelings  or  my 
tastes  offended,  I  cannot  help  regarding  the  actual  flogging  of  women,  for  example, 
in  Austria,  and  the  salt  and  pepper  applications  to  tlie  torn  backs  of  negroes  in  tlie 
Soutli,  as  not  only  in  themselves  worse  than  the  jwn  and  ink  descriptions  of  the  same 
transactions,  but  as  fully  justifying  the  latter,  and  actually  demanding  them,  as  a 
means  of  shaming  the  facts  out  of  existence.     So  of  the  disgusting  aud  intolerable 


914GD1 


4  Love^  Jfarrififfc^  and  Divorce. 

features  of  any  oppressive  social  institution.  It  is  tnio  that  scenes  of  abhorrent 
and  enforced  debauchery,  although  coveie<l  by  the  resiioctuhle  garb  of  legality,  are 
not  pleasing  subjects  for  contemplation  ;  but  to  my  mind  they  are  still  less  fitting 
to  exist  at  all.  If  the  denial  of  the  latter  fact  cannot  in  conscience  be  made,  I 
have  little  respect  for  that  sickly  suggestion  of  virtue  which,  by  turning  its  face 
to  the  wall,  refuses  to  see,  and  hopes  for  the  best,  w  ithout  so  much  as  a  protest 
against  the  enormous  degradation  of  our  common  humanity.  The  position  is  one 
not  often  assumed  by  Mr.  Greeley,  and  does  not  seem  to  me  either  natural  or  be- 
coming to  him. 

The  third  objection  is  that  he  (Mr.  Greeley)  cannot  permit  his  paper  to  be  made 
the  organ  of  repeatedly  announcing  and  defending  doctrines  so  destructive  to  the 
public  well-being,  and  especially  that  lie  caimot  tolerate  the  reiterated  assumption 
that  fornication,  adultery,  etc.,  are  no  crimes.  I  can  hardly  conceive  wijy  the  first 
statement  of  a  dangerous  or  offensive  set  of  opinions  should  be  innocent  enough 
for  the  columns  of  the  "Tribune,"  and  a  re-statement  of  the  same  thing  for  the 
purpose  of  answering  the  objections  or  misrepresentations  of  an  opponent  should 
be  too  bad  for  the  same  columns. 

I  can  discover  no  reason,  consistent  with  good  faith,  for  prohibiting  a  writer  who 
has  been  permitted  so  to  commit  himself  to  unpopular  doctrines  from  explaining 
his  meaning  until  he  is  entirely  comprehensible  to  all  who  desire  to  understand 
him. 

But  if  this  objection  were  really  such  as  weighs  with  the  editor  of  the  "Tribune," 
which  I  will  show  presently  it  is  not,  it  could  only  be  founded  in  misapprehension. 
I  am  as  honestly  and  thoroughly  opposed  to  adultery,  for  example,  as  the  editor 
of  the  "Tribune"  can  be,  except  that  we  might  differ  in  the  definition.  I  charge 
adultery  upon  nine-tenths  of  the  married  couples  in  this  city,  committed  not  out 
of,  but  within  the  limits  of,  their  marriage  bonds. 

Let  me  endeavor  to  make  myself  clear  upon  this  point.  If  I  were  in  a  Catholic 
country,  and  derided  or  denounced  the  mass  and  the  other  ceremonies  of  the 
Church,  I  should  clearly  be  held  by  the  whole  people  to  be  an  opposer  of 
religion.  Indeed,  such  a  deportment  might  even  be  found  described  in  the 
dictionary  definition,  in  that  country,  of  irreligion  or  atheism;  and  yet  it 
is  quite  conceivable  by  us  that  just  such  a  course  would  be,  or  might  be,  dic- 
tated by  a  zeal  for  religion  beyond  anything  prompting  the  defence  of  the  stere- 
otyped formalities  of  the  place.  The  ambiguity  exists  in  the  diversity  of 
understanding  of  the  word  religion.  The  one  believes  the  thing  signified  to  con- 
sist in,  or  at  least  only  to  coexist  with,  certain  rights  and  ceremonies  with  whicli 
it  has  always  been  associated  in  his  mind;  the  other  has  a  much  higher,  and,  as  we 
think,  a  much  purer  conception  of  the  idea  to  which  the  word  corresponds.  The 
former  is,  nevertheless,  confirmed  in  his  impression  by  the  outward  fact  that  those 
whom  he  has  hitherto  seen  least  regardful  of  the  external  worship  to  which  he  is 


Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  5 

himself  addicted  are  the  lawless  and  vagabond,  who  are  fitted  for  every  species  of 
criminal  act.  He  is  not  suflBciently  developed  in  intellect  and  expansive  in  com- 
prehension to  discriminate  and  individualize,  and  by  generalizing  too  early  con- 
founds me,  the  religious  philosopher  and  enthusiast,  with  tlie  vulgar  herd  of  the 
godless  and  abandoned,  —  the  man  who  is  above  him  with  the  man  who  is  below 
him,  —  because  they  both  dijfer  from  him,  and  in  one  feature  of  that  difference,  to 
his  cloudy  understanding,  they  seem  to  agree.  In  the  same  manner  there  are  those 
who  are  below  the  restraints  of  the  marriage  institution,  and  those  who  are  above 
their  necessity;  while  the  majority  in  civilized  countries  are  as  yet  upon  a  level 
with  the  institution,  and  manufacture  the  public  sentiment  in  conformity  with 
that  fact. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  three  centuries  ago,  the 
world  lay  bound  by  three  strong  cords  of  superstition,  —  the  Ecclesiastical,  the 
Governmental,  and  the  Matrimonial.  The  Church,  the  State,  and  the  Family,  each 
claimed  to  l)e  of  divine  origin  and  to  exist  by  divine  right. 

The  claim  of  the  Church  was  shaken  by  Luther,  and  from  his  day  to  ours,  reli- 
gion and  ecclesiastical  organization  have  been  separating  themselves,  as  ideas, 
wider  and  wider  in  men's  minds.  Washington  and  the  American  Revolution  mark 
a  similar  era  in  political  affairs,  and  modern  Socialism  foreshadows  a  corres^Kind- 
ing  change  in  the  sphere  of  the  domestic  relations.  Men  now  distinguish  pretty 
clearly  that  elevation  of  aims  and  that  devotion  to  the  good  and  true,  which  thev 
now  mean  by  religion,  from  a  church  establishment  or  an  organization  of  any  sort. 
They  distinguish,  in  like  manner,  the  prosperity,  the  well-being,  and  civic  order 
of  the  community  from  crowns,  and  cabinets,  and  parliaments,  and  standing  armies 
of  politicians  and  soldiers.  In  like  manner,  they  begin  to  distinguish  purity  in  the 
sexual  union  of  loving  souls  from  the  sordid  considerations  of  a  marriage  settle- 
ment, and  even  from  the  humane,  pradential,  and  economical  arrangements  for 
the  care  of  offspring. 

The  fallacy — exploded  by  the  development  of  mind — consists  in  the  assumption 
that  "  The  Church"  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  elevated  sentiments  toward  God 
and  one's  fellow-beings;  that  the  love  of  spiritual  truths  and  of  the  social  virtues  is 
not  naturally  in  men,  growing  with  their  growth,  but  that  it  has  to  be  put  into 
them  and  kept  in  them  by  the  constant  instrumentality  of  popes,  cardinals, 
l>ishops,  and  priests,  Councils,  Inquisitions,  Constitutions,  and  Synods;  that  men 
do  not,  by  nature,  love  order  and  justice  and  harmony  in  their  civic  relations,  and 
love  it  the  more  in  prop  ortion  to  their  refinement,  education,  and  development,  and 
only  need  to  know  how  they  are  to  be  attained,  and  to  l^  relieved  from  hindrances 
and  overmastering  temptations  adversely,  to  give  themselves  gladly  to  the  pursuit 
of  those  virtues;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  these  elements  likewise  have  to  l>e  pr»>- 
vided  and  administered  by  magistrates  and  bailiffs  and  all  the  tedious  machinery 
of  govemme;it;  and,  finally,  that  men  do  not,  naturally,  love  their  own  offspring. 


6  Love^  Jlarriage^  (aid  Divorce, 

and  the  mothers  of  their  children,  and  defereuce  for  the  sex,  aud  sexual  purity, 
and  all  the  beautiful  and  rehning  influences  of  that  the  purest  and  holiest  of  all  our 
intercourse  on  earth,  and  gravitate  powerfully  toward  the  realization  of  those  loves, 
in  proi)ortiou  as  they  become,  through  all  elevating  influences,  more  perfect  men, 
but  that  those  virtues  again  have  to  be  made,  injected,  and  preserved  in  human  Le- 
ings  by  legislation,  which,  strangely  enough,  is  merely  the  collective  action  of  the 
same  beings  who,  taken  individually,  are  assumed  to  be  destitute  of  those  same 
ipialities.  So  opposite  is  the  truth  that  it  is  the  love  of  these  very  virtues  which 
cheats  and  constrains  men  to  endure  the  organizations  and  systems  under  which 
they  groan,  because  they  have  been  taught  that  those  systems  are  the  only  condi- 
tion of  retaining  the  virtues.  It  is  the  discovery  of  this  sham  which,  I  have  said, 
marks  the  development  of  mind.  The  cheat,  thus  exposed,  is  to  be  taken  in  con- 
nection with  another.  It  is  assumed  that  just  those  forms  of  action  which  these 
artificial  organizations  or  patent  manufactories  of  virtue  prescribe  are  the  sole  true 
forms  of  action,  that  their  product  is  the  genuine  article,  and  that  every  other 
product  is  vice.  Hence  the  attention  of  mankind  is  turned  wholly  away  from  the 
study  of  nature,  and  the  human  mind  gradually  trained  to  the  acceptance  of  au- 
thority and  tradition  without  question  or  dissent. 

In  this  manner,  piety  is  made  to  signify  zeal  for  the  Church  or  a  sect,  patriotism" 
loyalty  to  a  sovereign,  and  purity  fidelity  to  the  marriage  bond.  In  the  sanie  man-^* 
ner,  irreligion  is  identified  with  heresy,  treason  with  the  rights  of  the  people,  and 
debauchery  with  the  freedom  of  the  affections.  It  suits  the  bigot,  the  despot,  and 
the  male  or  female  prude  to  foster  this  confusion  of  things  dissimilar,  and  to  de- 
nounce the  champions  of  freedom  as  licentious  and  wicked  men,  —  the  enemies  of 
mankind. 

In  the  case  supposed,  the  Catholic  denounces  the  Protestant  as  guilty  of  im- 
piety, and  so,  in  this  case,  oMr.  Greeley  denounces  me,  as  favoring  impiety  and 
adultery.  It  is  clear,  as  I  have  said,  that  whether  I  do  so  or  not  depends  upon  the 
definitions  of  the  terms.  If  by  adultery  is  meant  a  breach  of  a  legal  bond,  bind- 
ing a  man  and  woman  between  whom  there  are  repugnance  and  disgust  instead  <^ 
attraction  and  love,  to  live  together  in  the  marital  embrace,  then  there  may  be 
some  grounds  for  the  charge;  but  if,  as  I  choose  to  define  it,  adultery  means  3l 
sexual  union,  induced  by  any  other  motive,  however  amiable  or  justifiable  in  itselfl 
than  that  mutual  love  which  by  nature  prompts  the  amative  conjunction  of  tha 
sexes,  materially  and  spiritually,  then  do  I  oppose  and  inveigh  against,  and  then 
does  Mr.  Greeley  defend  and  uphold,  adultery.  As  to  purity,  I  have  no  idea 
whatever  that  Mr.  Greeley  knows,  owing  to  the  perverting  influence  of  authoritj' 
or  legislation,  what  purity  is.  Xor  does  he  know  what  impurity  is,  for,  since  all 
things  must  be  known  by  contrasts,  no  man  v.  hose  conceptions  upon  this  subject 
do  not  transcend  the  limits  of  legality  can  know  it,  nor  loathe  it, 'as  those  do  who, 
having  conceived  of  or  experienced  a  genu  ine  fi'eedom,  come  to  distinguish  a  pru- 


Love.,  3fai^iage,  and  Divorce.  7 

rient  faucy  from  a  genuine  affection,  and  learn  to  make  the  highest  and  most  per- 
fect affinities  of  their  nature  the  law  of  their  being. 

But,  liowever  pernicious  my  views  may  be  lield  to  be,  the  fact  of  their  being  so 
is  no  reason,  according  to  Mr.  Greeley,  why  they  should  not  be  given  to  the  world. 
At  least,  although  he  now  urges  it  as  a  reason,  it  is  only  a  few  weeks  since  he 
stoutly  defended  the  opposite  position;  and  if  there  be  any  settled  principle  or 
policy  to  which  he  has  professed  and  attempted  to  adhere,  it  has  been,  more  tliun 
any  other,  that  all  sorts  of  opinions, good,  bud,  and  "detestable"  even, should  have 
a  chance  to  be  uttered,  and  so  confirmed  or  refuted.  It  has  been  his  favorite  doc- 
trine, apparently,  that  "  Error  need  not  be  feared  while  the  Truth  is  left  free  to 
combat  it."  Very  recently,  in  stating  the  policy  of  the  "Tribune"  he  gave  the 
noblest  estimate  ever  pronmlgated  of  the  true  function  of  the  newspaper,  —  namely, 
"To  let  every  body  know  what  every  body  else  is  thinking."  To  a  writer,  calling 
himself  "Young  America,"  who  objected  to  the  "Tribune"  reporting  the  argu- 
ments of  Catholics,  Mr.  Greeley  replied,  in  substance,  that  he  should  just  as  read- 
ily report  the  doings  and  arguments  and  opinions  of  a  convention  of  atheists,  as 
he  should  do  the  same  service  for  his  own  co-religionists.  In  this  very  discussion 
he  says:  "We  are  inflexibly  opposed,  therefore,  to  any  extension  of  the  privileges 
of  divorce  now  accorded  by  our  laws,  but  we  are  not  opposed  to  the  discussion  of 
the  subject;  on  the  contrary,  we  deem  such  discussion  as  already  too  long  ne^'- 
lected."  Of  Mr.  James  he  says  :  "We  totally  differ  from  him  on  some  quite  fun- 
damental questions,  but  that  is  no  reason  for  suppressing  what  lie  has  to  say."  In 
his  reply  to  me,  published  herein,  he  repudiates  the  right  to  suppress  what  I  have 
to  sai/,  while  he  avers  that  he  would  aid  to  suppress  me  if  I  attempted  to  act  on  mv 
own  opinions.  Finally,  in  various  waj-s  and  upon  various  occasions,  the  columns 
of  the  "Tribune"  were  formally  thrown  open  for  the  full  discussion  of  this  subject 
of  marriage  and  divorce,  as  well  for  those  views  of  the  subject  which  the  editor 
deems  pernicious  as  for  the  other  side.  The  editor  of  the  "Observer"  reproached 
him  for  so  doing,  and  he  defended  the  course  as  the  only  truth-seeking  and  honor- 
able procedure.  He  wished  especialli/  to  drag  to  the  light,  in  their  full  extension 
and  strength,  those  "eminently  detestable"  doctrines  of  one  phase  of  which  he 
seems  to  regard  me  as  a  representative,  in  order  that  they  might  forever  after  have 
got  their  quietus  from  a  blow  of  the  sledge-hammer  of  his  logic.  If,  now,  the 
valiant  editor  proves  shaky  in  his  adherence  to  this  truly  sublime  position,  —  of 
justice  and  a  fair  hearing  to  all  parties,  —  shall  we,  in  kindness  to  him,  find  the  so- 
lution in  the  supposition  that  he  was  dishonest  in  assuming  it,  or  give  him  the 
benefit  of  the  milder  hypothesis,  —  that  he  found  himself  rather  farther  at  sea  than 
he  is  accustomed  to  navigate,  and  betook  himself  again  in  alarm  to  the  coast 
voyage  ? 

I  shall  leave  it  to  the  public  to  decide,  finally,  what  was  the  real  cause  of  my 
getting  myself  turned  out  of  court  before  I  had  fairly  stated,  much  less  argued,  tny 


8  Love^  Marriacje^  and  Divorce. 

defence.  I  shall  not,  in  the  meantime,  however,  hesitate  to  say  what  I  think  of 
tlie  matter  myself.  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  that  any  one  of  the  reasons  as- 
signed inliuenced  the  decision  a  straw's  weight.  The  sole  cause  of  my  extrusion 
was  that  ^Ir.  Greeley  found  himself  completely  "headed"  and  hemmed  in  in  the 
argument,  with  the  astuteness  clearly  to  perceive  that  fact,  while  he  had  neither 
the  dialectical  skill  to  obscure  the  issues  and  disguise  it,  nor  the  magnanimity 
frankly  to  acknowledge  a  defeat.  Hence,  there  was  no  alternative  but  to  apply 
"the  gag"  and  "suppress"  me  by  the  exercise  of  that  power  which  the  present  or- 
ganization of  the  press,  and  his  position  in  connection  with  it,  lodges  in  his  hands. 
Ilud  fortune  made  him  the  emperor  of  Austria,  and  me  a  subject,  he  would  have 
done  the  same  thing  in  a  slightly  different  manner,  iu  strict  accordance  with  his 
character  and  the  principles  he  has  avowed  in  this  discussion.  Such  men  mistake 
themselves  when  they  suppose  that  they  have  any  genuine  affection  for  freedom. 
They  laud  it  only  so  far  as  prejudice  or  education  incline  them  to  favor  this  or  that 
instance  of  its  operation.  They  refer  their  defence  of  it  to  no  principle.  No  secur- 
ity has  yet  been  achieved  for  the  continuance  of  the  enjoyment  of  such  freedom 
and  such  rights  as  we  now  enjoy;  no  safeguard  even  against  a  final  return  to  des- 
potism, and  thence  to  barbarism,  until  the  Principle  upon  which  the  right  to  free- 
dom rests,  and  the  scope  of  that  principle,  are  discovered,  nor  until  a  public 
sentiment  exists,  based  upon  that  knowledge.  Americans,  no  more  than  bar*v 
barians,  have  as  yet  attained  to  the  fulness  of  that  wisdom,  and  as  little  as  anjf/ 
does  Mr.  Greeley  know  of  any  such  guide  through  the  maze  of  problems  which  en- 
viron him,  and  perhaps  less  than  most  is  he  capable  of  following  it. 

Circumstances —  the  fact  that  he  is  a  prominent  editor,  that  he  has  strenuously 
advocated  certain  reformatory  measures,  and  that  he  has  the  reputation  of  great 
benevolence  —  have  given  to  Mr.  Greeley  somewhat  the  position  of  a  leader  of  the 
reform  movement  in  America.  The  lovers  of  progress  look  to  him  in  that  capacity. 
The  publicity  and  the  immense  importance  of  such  a  position  will  justify  me,  I 
think,  in  giving  my  estimate  of  the  man,  and  of  his  fitness  for  the  work  he  is  ex- 
pected to  perform,  in  the  same  manner  as  we  investigate  the  character  of  a  politi- 
cian, or  as  Mr.  Greeley  himself  would  analyze  for  us  the  pretensions  of  Louis 
Napoleon  or  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  Similar  considerations  will  authorize  me  in 
mingling  with  the  portraiture  of  Mr.  Greeley  a  few  shadowy  outlines  of  Mr.  James, 
contrasting  them  a  la  Plutarch  in  his  "  Lives  of  the  Great  Men." 

Li  the  first  place,  then,  Horace  Greeley  is  not  a  philosopher, — the  farthest  from 
it  in  the  woild.  No  greater  misnomer  could  seriously  be  applied  to  him.  He  is  a 
man  of  statistics  and  facts,  but  not  of  principles.  He  sees  broadly  over  the  sur- 
face, but  never  down  into  the  centre  of  things.  As  a  phrenologist  would  say,  the 
perceptive  preponderate  over  the  reasoning  faculties.  He  has  no  grasp  of  the 
whole  of  anything  as  a  system,  but  only  of  detached  portions  or  fragments. 
Hence,  instead  of  principles,  he  has  whims,  and  acts  from  them  as  if  they  were 


Love^  Marriage,  and  Divorce.  9 

principles.  He  does  not  see  clearly  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  He  has  no 
logical,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  no  mathematical  mind.  He  is  one  of  the  class 
of  men  who  will  admit  candidly  that  A  is  equal  to  IJ,  and  tliat  B  is  equal  to  C, 
and  then  cavil  over  or  deny  point  blank  that  A  is  equal  to  C.  Hence,  he  earns 
the  reputation  of  inconsistency,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  puMic  believe  him  dis- 
honest. This  last  is,  I  think,  a  mistake.  ^Ir.  (xreeley  is  a  bigot,  and  bigotry  is 
generally  honest.  His  tergiversation  is  organic,  not  intentional.  His  incapacity 
for  system  is  shown  in  the  fact  that,  altliough  he  has  been  regarded  as  the  grand 
embodiment  of  Fourierism  in  this  country,  he  never  accepted  and  never  gave 
any  intimation  that  he  even  understood  the  fundamental  principle  of  Fourier's 
whole  social  theory. 

Fourier  (who  was  really  about  the  most  remarkable  genius  who  has  yet  lived) 
claims  as  his  grand  discovery  that  Attraction,  which  Newton  discovered  to  be  the 
law  and  the  regulator  of  the  motions  of  material  bodies,  is  equally  the  law  and  the 
God-intended  regulator  of  the  whole  affectional  ami  social  sphere  in  human  affairs  ; 
in  other  words,  that  Newton's  discovery  was  partial,  while  his  is  integral,  and 
lays  the  basis  of  a  science  of  analogy  between  the  material  and  the  spiritual  world, 
so  that  reasoning  may  be  carried  on  with  safety  from  one  to  the  other. 

This  principle,  announced  by  Fourier  as  the  starting  point  of  all  science,  has 
been  accepted  by  Mr.  Greeley  in  a  single  one  of  its  applications,  —  namely,  the  or- 
ganization of  labor, — and  wholly  rejected  by  him  in  its  universality,  as  applicable 
to  the  human  passions  and  elsewhere.  The  farthest  he  seems  ever  to  have  seen  in- 
to the  magnificent  speculations  of  Fourier  is  to  tlie  economy  to  be  gained  by  labor 
done  upon  the  large  scale,  and  the  possibility  of  the  retention  of  profits  by  the  la- 
borers themselves  by  means  of  association.  It  is  as  if  a  man  should  gain  the  re- 
putation of  a  leader  in  the  promulgation  of  the  Copernico-N"ewtonian  system  of 
astronomy  by  publishing  his  conviction  that  tlie  moon  is  retained  in  her  orbit  by 
gravitation  toward  the  earth,  while  denying  wholly  that  the  earth  is  round,  or  that 
the  sun  is  the  centre  of  the  system,  or  that  attraction  can  be  supposed  to  operate 
at. such  an  immense  distance  as  that  body  and  the  planets.  In  the  same  manner, 
Mr.  Greeley  can  understand  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  in  one  aspect,  as  the 
assertion  of  one's  own  rights,  but  not  at  all  in  the  other, — namely,  as  the  conces- 
sion of  the  rights  of  all  others,  ami  tiirough  its  limital  io-i,  "  to  be  exercisei]  at  one's 
own  cost,"  —  the  exact  deinarcator  b 'tween  wliat  one  may  and  what  he  may  not  do. 
He  is  a  man  of  great  power,  antl  strikes  hard  blows  when  he  fairly  gets  a  chance 
to  strike  at  all,  but  with  his  prevailing  inconsistency  he  reminds  one  of  a  blind 
giant  hitting  out  at  random  in  a  fray. 

Mr.  Greeley  has  never  been  able  to  see  anything  in  the  "Cost  Principle"  except 
the  fact  that  it  abolishes  interest  on  money,  and  hence  he  begins  at  once  by  oppos- 
ing it.  He  has  worked  hard  for  his  money,  and  it  seems  to  him  a  very  natural, 
convenient,  and  proper  thing  that  that  money,  so  earned,  should  go  on  earning  more 


10  Lcyve,  JfarriiKjc,  and  Divorce,  * 

for  him  while  he  sleeps.  This  one  cousideration  settles,  with  him,  the  whole  ques- 
tion. He  does  not  coinprelieiul  in  this  sublime  and  simple  principle  a  universal 
law  of  equity,  which  distributes  wealth  exactly  according  to  Right;  reduces  all 
products  to  the  miuiinum  price,  thereby  iuunensely  augmenting  consuniption;  re- 
moves all  obstacles  to  the  adjustment  of  supply  and  demand;  brings  all  human 
laber  into  steady  demand;  exchanges  it  for  exact  equivalents;  organizes  industry; 
places  evt^ry  human  being  in  his  or  her  appropriate  work  or  function;  substitutes 
universal  cooperation  in  the  place  of  universal  antagonism ;  renders  practicable 
the  economies  of  the  large  scale,  ami  the  division  of  labor  in  every  department; 
houses  the  whole  people  iu  palaces,  surrounds  them  with  luxury  and  refinement, 
and  hundred-folds  the  wealth  of  the  world.  Such  manifold  and  magnificent  results 
from  a  simple  change  iu  the  method  of  conducting  ordinary  trade  transcend  the 
capacity  of  Mr.  Greeley  and  the  philosophers  of  the  "Tribune";  while  there  are 
now  boys,  aud  girls  too,  not  twelve  years  of  age,  who  can  scientifically  demonstrate 
these  results  as  legitimate  and  certain,  and  can,  by  the  aid  of  this  key,  solve  with 
facility  all  the  problems  of  political  economy  with  a  clearness,  comprehensiveness, 
and  precision  never  dreamed  of  by  Say,  Adam  Smith,  or  Ricardo. 

Mr.  Greeley  is,  undoubtedly,  a  man  of  benevolence.  lie  is  profusely,  perhaps 
'^even  foolishly,  lavish,  as  he  begins,  doubtless,  himself  to  think,  in  his  expenditures 
for  the  relief  of  suffering,  and  for  random  experiments,  without  system,  or  coherent 
design,  for  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  mankind.  He  is  benevolent,  too, 
chiefly  in  the  lower  and  material  range  of  human  affairs.  His  thought  rises  no 
higher,  apparently,  than  supplying  men  with  food  for  the  body,  raiment,  and  shelter. 
At  most  he  aspires  after  so  much  education  as  will  enable  them  "to  cipher"  and 
make  profit.  He  has  no  experience  of,  no  sympathy  with,  and  no  ability  to  conceive 
that  immense  hunger  of  the  soul  which  craves,  and  will  have,  despite  all  the  conven- 
tionalities of  the  universe,  the  gratification  of  spiritual  alfinities,  the  congenial  at- 
mosphere of  loving  hearts.  The  explosive  power  of  a  grand  passion  is  all  Greek 
to  him.  So  of  all  the  delicate  and  more  attenuated  sentiment  which  forms  the  ex 
quisite  aroma  of  Imman  society.  He  understands  best,  and  appreciates  most,  the 
^coarse,  material  realities  of  life.     Purely  mental  exercitation  is  repugnant  to  him. 

In  this  latter  characteristic  Mr.  Greeley  is  the  exact  antipodes  of  Mr.  James. 
This  latter  gentleman  tends  powerfully  toward  metaphysical  subtleties  and  spiri- 
tual entities,  until  he  is  completely  lifted  off  the  solid  earth,  and  loses  all  know- 
ledge of  practical  things.  The  latter  is  of  the  class  of  purely  ideal  reformers,  men 
who  will  lounge  at  their  ease  upon  damask  sofas  and  dream  of  a  harmonic  and 
beautiful  world  to  be  created  hereafter,  while  they  would  be  probably  the  very  last 
to  whom  the  earnest  worker,  in  any  branch  of  human  concerns,  could  resort  for 
aid  with  any  prospect  of  success.  He  hates  actual  reform  and  reformers,  and  re- 
gards benevolence  as  a  disease. 

With  the  points  of  difference  above  indicated,  the  two  men  we  are  now  compar- 


Love^  3Iarriafj€^  and  Divorce.  11 

ing  are  alike  in  the  fact  that  within  their  respective  and  opftosite  spheres  their 
vision  is  Icaleidoscopic.  This  is  the  word  to  describe  them.  It  is  not  a  microscope, 
nor  a  telescope,  nor  the  healthy  natural  e}'^  wliich  they  employ  in  the  examination 
of  a  subject.  Broken  fragments  of  prejudice  reflect  the  light  at  a  thousand  angles 
of  incidence,  producing  effects  which,  in  the  earthy  world  of  Mr.  Greeley,  are  dull 
and  sombre  and  conmionplace,  and  in  the  ethereal  region  inliabited  l)y  Mr.  James, 
splendid,  sparkling,  and  beautiful.  Neither  can  be  relied  on  as  a  guide  to  anything 
exact  or  true.  Both  are  suggestive,  inspiring,  and  disappointing.  Neither  is  a 
whole  man,  and  the  lialves  which  they  do  i)resent  are  not  homogeneous  and  con- 
sistent. Mr.  Greeley  would  have  been  greatly  improved  in  exactitude  and  ta.st«  by 
a  mathematical  and  classical,  or  even  a  legal,  training;  Mr.  James,  ui\  the  con- 
trary, by  an  education  in  a  workshop  or  a  counting-house,  or  the  scramble  of  poli- 
tical life,  anything  which  would  have  related  him  to  the  actual  world  around  him. 
Both  are  superior  men,  measured  by  comparison  with  the  still  smaller  fragments 
of  men  which  compose  the  mass  of  society  in  its  present  state  of  social  chaos; 
both  are  exceedingly  small  men,  measured  by  the  ideal  one  may  form  of  integral 
and  well-developed  manhood;  mens  sana  in  corpnre  sano.  Let  not  the  selfish  ego- 
tist, whose  highest  thought  has  never  risen  to  the  well-being  of  mankind  in  any 
shape,  "chuckle"  over  this  criticism  ui)on  Horace  Greeley,  a  man  who  compares 
with  him  as  "Hyperion  to  a  SatjT,"  a  man  who  has  done  something,  and  attempted 
much,  with  powerful  endeavor  and  honest  enthusiasm,  for  the  elevation  of  human- 
ity. The  criticism  is  not  dictated  l)y  any  disposition  to  depreciate  such  a  man, 
but  only  to  ascertain  the  fitnesses  and  the  unfitnesses  of  things.  IIow  far  can  the 
great  and  already  powerful  and  ever-growing  party  of  American  social  reformers 
or  progressives  look  to  Horace  Greeley  as  a  competent  conductor  through  the  laby- 
rinth of  problems  which  the  complicated  and  obviously  vicious  constitution  of  so. 
ciety,  resting  as  a  basis  upon  the  depression,  wretchedness,  and  semi-barbarism  of 
the  masses  of  the  people,  presents  to  them  for  resolution.  My  answer  is.  Not  at 
all.  He  lias  been  a  sort  of  John  the  Baptist,  if  you  will, — one  crying,  literally,  in 
the  wilderness,  "Prepare  the  way,"  but  with  no  power  to  lead  the  way  himself. 
His  mission  was  to  agitato  powerfully  and  successfully,  —  not  to  organize.  He  has 
no  complete  theory  of  his  own,  cannot  compreliend  the  theories  of  others,  and  has 
little  practical  talent  for  construction.  He  feels  keenly  the  evils  aroun<l  him, — 
those,  at  least,  growing  out  of  the  first  grade  of  luunan  wants, — and  grasps 
eagerly  at  the  first  contrivances  suggested  by  anybody  for  immediate  or  apparent 
relief.  In  all  this  he  differs  from  Mr.  Janu-s,  who  ranges  ideally  in  a  much  higher 
.sphere,  who  is  an  astute  and  terribly  searching  and  merciless,  though  not  alto- 
gether a  sound  and  reliable,  critic  of  the  old,  and  who,  as  resin-cts  the  future,  be- 
longs to  the  school  of  seers  and  prophets,  not  that  of  tin'  j>hiloso]thers  or  rational 
thinkers,  —  a  mere  jet  il'ean  of  a>*piration,  reaching  a  liiglu-r  elfvafion  at  soni.» 
points  than  almost  any  other  man,  but  breaking  into  spray  and  inipal|>ublu  mist. 


12  Love^  Marriafje^  and  Divorce. 

glittering  in  the  sun,  and  descending  to  earth  with  no  weight  or  mechanical  force 
to  effect  any  great  end.  It  is  not  such  men,  one  or  both,  whom  the  world  now 
chiefly  needs. 

JosiAii  Warren,  an  obscure,  plain  man,  one  of  the  people,  a  conunon-sense 
thinker,  the  most  profoundly  analytical  thinker  who  has  ever  dealt  with  this  class 
of  subjects,  has  discovered  principles  which  render  the  righteous  organization  of 
society  as  simple  a  matter  of  science  as  any  other.  "The  Sovereignty  of  the  Indi- 
vidual," with  its  limit,  and  "Cost  the  limit  of  Price,"  will  make  his  fame,  and 
mark  an  epoch  in  the  world's  history.  The  realization  of  the  results  of  those  prin- 
ciples is  already  begun  upon  a  scale  too  small,  and  with  a  quietness  too  self-reliant, 
to  have  attracted  much  of  the  public  notice;  but  with  a  success  satisfactory  and 
inspiring  to  those  practically  engaged  in  the  movement.  It  is  somethuig  to  be 
able  to  affirm  that  there  is  at  least  one  town  in  existence  where  women  and  chil- 
dren receive  equal  remuneration  for  their  labor  with  men,  not  from  benevolence, 
bnt  upon  a  well-recognized  principle  of  justice,  and  by  general  concurrence,  with- 
out pledges  or  constraint. 

Mr.  Warren  is  the  Euclid  of  social  science.  He  may  not  understand  algebra,  the 
differential  calculus,  or  fluxions,  but  all  social  science,  and  every  beneficent,  suc- 
cessful, and  permanent  social  institution  ever  hereafter  erected,  must  rest  upon  the 
principles  which  have  been  discovered  and  announced  by  him.  There  is  no  alter- 
native; and  reformers  may  as  well  begin  by  understanding  that  they  have  a  science 
to  study  and  a  definite  work  to  perform,  and  not  a  mere  senseless,  and  endless, 
and  aimless  agitation  to  maintain.  The  work  demands  pioneers,  men  who  have 
muscles,  and  brains,  and  backbones.  It  needs  men  who  are  architects,  and  can  see 
intellectually  the  form,  and  proportions,  and  adaptations  of  the  whole  immense 
edifice  to  be  erected;  and  stone-cutters,  and  masons,  and  builders  of  every  grade; 
men,  especially  at  this  stage,  wlio  can  go  down  to  the  foundations  and  excavate 
the  dirt  and  lay  the  mud-sills  of  the  social  fabric.  The  Greeleys  and  the  Jameses 
are  not  such  men.  They  belong  to  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  these  classes. 
They  must  bide  their  time,  and  when  the  work  is  done,  they  will,  perhaps,  tardily 
recognize  the  yac<,  though  they  could  not,  a  priori,  comprehend  tho  principles  upon 
which  it  was  to  be  accomplished. 

It  was  for  the  purpose  of  foreshadowing  the  eutire  extent  of  the  work  to  be  per- 
formed, of  expounding  the  principles  that  are  now  known,  of  provoking  discussion, 
opposition,  criticism  by  the  ablest  pens,  of  every  point  I  had  to  propound,  that  I 
desired  the  use  of  the  columns  of  the  "Tribune."  It  was  mere  accident —  the  fact 
that  a  discussion  was  already  pending,  and  that  further  discussion  was  invited  — 
which  determined  tlie  point  of  beginning  to  be  the  subject  of  Marriage  and  Di- 
vorce. It  is  such  information  as  I  possess  \ipon  the  whole  scope  of  subjects  in 
wliicli  Mr.  Greeley  is  supposed  to  take  a  special  interest,  and  of  which  the  "Tri- 
bune" newspaper  is  regarded  as,  in  some  sense,  the  organ  in  this  country,  that  I 


Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce.  13 

desired  to  lay  before  the  world,  through  its  instrumentality.  It  is  that  information 
which,  worth  much  or  little,  Mr.  Greeley  refuses  to  permit  his  readers  to  obtain. 
How  far  the  narrowness  of  such  exclusion  comports  with  the  pretensions  of  that 
sheet  will  be  judged  of  differently,  doubtless,  by  different  individualities. 

Mr.  Greeley  has  no  conception,  and  never  had,  of  the  entirety  of  the  Social  Re- 
volution which  is  actually,  if  not  obviously,  impending;  which,  indeed,  is  hourly 
progressing  in  our  modern  society.  lie  is  not  a  Socialist  in  any  integral,  revolu- 
tionary, and  comprehensive  sense.  He  has  no  apprehension  of  so  broad  an  idea  as 
a  Universal  Analogy.  He  does  not  know  that  it  is  impossible  that  some  one  grand 
department  of  social  affairs  —  the  love  relations,  for  example  —  should  be  exactly 
right  upon  their  old  chance  foundation,  in  the  absence  of  science,  reflective  or  fore- 
seeing, and  that  all  other  departments  have  been  radically  wrong;  just  as  impos- 
sible as  it  is  for  one  member  of  the  human  body  to  be  in  a  state  of  perfect  health, 
and  all  the  rest  to  be  grievously,  almost  mortally,  diseased.  Ignorant  of  this  great 
fact,  and  mistaking  doctrinal  preconceptions  or  personal  preferences  for  princi- 
ples, his  opinions  are  a  mosaic  of  contradiction.  He  is  a  queer  cross  between  ultra 
Radicalism  and  bigoted  Orthodoxy,  vibrating  unsteadily  betwixt  the  two.  Hence, 
as  I  have  said,  he  is  totally  unreliable  as  a  leader,  and  must  be  an  object  of  constant 
annoyance  and  disappointment  to  his  followers  and  friends,  as  he  is  of  mingled 
ridicule  and  contempt  to  personal  enemies  who  recognize  no  compensations  in  the 
really  excellent  traits  of  the  man. 

As  an  antagonist,  or  an  umpire  between  antagonists,  Mr.  Greeley  is  unfair, 
tricky,  and  mean.  Owing  to  the  want  of  consistency  in  his  own  mind,  and  his  li- 
ability to  side-influences  of  all  sorts,  he  is  practically  dishonest  to  an  eminent 
degree.  It  is  with  reference  to  unconsciousness  and  want  of  design  in  his  prevari- 
cations that  I  have  pronounced  liim  honest.  Honorable,  in  the  chivalric  sense  of  the 
term,  he  has  no  pretensions  of  any  sort  to  be  regarded.  He  is  lamentably  wanting 
in  the  more  gentle  manly  attributes  of  the  man.  Whoever  looks  for  delicate  con- 
sideration for  the  sensibilities  of  another,  urbanity  of  manners,  magnanimity,  or 
even  that  sturdy  sense  of  fair-dealing  of  which  noble  specimens  maybe  seen  in  the 
English  peasant  or  prize-fighter,  must  look  elsewliere.  Perhaps  no  better  illustra- 
tions can  be  given  of  some  of  these  defects  as  an  impartial  journalist  and  high- 
minded  opponent  than  the  two  following  facts.  !My  communications  in  this 
controversy  were  freely  placed  at  the  disposition  of  Mr.  James  before  they  were  pub- 
lished, to  be  conned  and  studied  by  him,  and  were  so  conned  and  studied  by  this 
latter  gentleman,  and  one  of  them  written  round  and  half  replied  to  in  an  answer 
by  him  to  "The  Observer,"  in  order  that  his  reply  to  mo  might  be  dispatched  by 
a  dash  of  the  pen  and  as  mere  reference  to  what  he  had  already  written. 

The  other  illustration  is  the  fact  that,  while  I^Ir.  Greeley  has  refused  to  allow  me 
to  reply  to  his  own  and  Mr.  James's  arguments,  he  haa  reserved  from  the  public 
all  knowledge  of  such  refusal.     He  has  not  liad  the  decency  to  inform  his  readers 


14  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

that  he  has  cliosen  to  close  the  discussion,  abruptly,  aud  that  /  am  not  permitted 
to  reply.  lie  has  done  what  he  could,  therefore,  to  leave  the  impression  upon  their 
minds  that  I  have  been  silenced,  not  by  the  tyrannical  use  of  arbitrary  power,  but 
by  the  force  of  logic,  thus  stealing  the  reputation  for  victory  in  a  battle  which  ho 
was  wanting  in  the  courage  to  fight.  Such  an  issue  with  Mr.  Greeley  was,  perhaps, 
not  very  surprising  from  the  estimate  I  am  now  inditing  of  his  organization,  pro- 
pensities, and  order  of  culture.  With  Mr.  James  I  confess  it  was  somewhat  differ- 
ent. I  thought  him  to  have  been  bred  in  a  circle  which,  with  other  faults  in 
abundance,  cherishes,  nevertheless,  a  high-minded  and  chivalric  bearing  toward 
antagonists,  no  less  than  gentle  courtesy  toward  one's  friends.  Fidgety  exertions, 
by  personal  influence  in  that  quarter,  to  suppress  the  criticism  of  an  opponent, 
and  an  unmannerly  readiness  to  avail  one's  self  of  the  improprieties  of  editors  and 
sub-editors  in  communicating  information  which  ought  to  be  reserved,  were  ob- 
stacles in  the  way  of  a  fair  hearing  which  I  did  not  anticipate. 

It  is  appropriate  that  I  should  mention  the  origin  and  antecedents  of  this  dis- 
cussion. Mr.  James  published  in  the  "Tribune"  a  very  saucy  and  superficial  re- 
view of  a  work  by  Doctor  Lazarus,  entitled,  "Love  vs.  Marriage,"  in  which  the 
whole  gist  of  the  argument  lay  in  the  sheer  and  naked  assumption  that  the  Family, 
not  the  Individual,  is  the  nucleus  of  society.  Out  of  this  grew  up  a  discussion  be- 
tween hira  and  the  editor  of  the  New  York  "Observer,"  an  influential  and  highly 
respectable  religious  newspaper  of  this  city,  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  who 
took  Mr.  James  to  task  for  some  of  his  heresies,  and  Mr.  Greeley  also,  for  allow- 
ing the  discussion  of  such  subjects  at  all  in  his  paper.  The  replies  of  Mr.  James, 
in  which  he  stated  his  own  positions  on  the  marriage  question,  seemed  to  me,  while 
abounding  certainly  in  vigorous  invective,  so  inconsequential  and  loose  in  their  rea- 
soning that  I  ventured,  under  the  general  statement  of  Mr.  Greeley  that  he  wished 
the  whole  subject  thoroughly  discussed,  to  put  to  IMr.  James  a  few  questions,  con- 
sistent replies  to  which  would  have  greatly  cleared  the  understanding  of  his  posi- 
tions and  strengthened  the  cause  of  Freedom,  which  he  assumed  to  defend.  What 
followed  will  appear  by  the  discussion  itself. 

The  scope  of  my  present  design  does  not  include  the  publication  of  the  discus- 
sion between  Mr.  James  and  the  "Observer."  I  shall  begin,  nevertheless,  with  one 
of  the  replies  of  Mr.  James  to  that  opponent,  as  well  from  its  necessary  connection 
with  what  follows  as  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  reader  to  judge  to  what  de- 
gree IMr.  James  entitles  himself  to  delicate  and  considerate  treatment  by  his  own 
habitual  suavity  of  manner.  I  regret  any  appearance  of  unfairness  in  omitting 
the  exceedingly  able  and  caustic  replies  of  the  "  Observer,"  but  my  limits  preclude 
so  extensive  a  republication,  my  purpose  being  to  present  here  what  was  excluded 
from  publication  elsewhere. 

Before  closing  this  Introduction,  I  wish  to  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  general 
subject,  and  especially  as  respects  the  dangerous  and  eminently  detestable  nature 
of  my  principles  and  views. 


Love,  31arriage,  and  Divorce.  15 

The  priestly  bigot  and  intellectual  tyrant  believes  in  all  honesty  that  freedom  of 
thought  and  of  conscience  are  dangerous  things  for  those  over  whom  his  influence 
rules,  because  he  begins  by  the  assumption  that  he  is  a  useful  person,  and  that  the 
function  he  performs  and  the  influence  he  exerts  are  essential,  indispensable  even, 
to  the  well-being  of  the  people.  He  cannot  be  pronounced  dishonest  on  the  mere 
ground  that  his  interest  is  involved,  since  the  people  themselves,  whose  interest  is 
really  adverse,  admit  and  entertain  the  same  idea.  It  is  usually  ignorance  on  both 
sides;  more  rarely  the  relation  of  impostor  and  dupe.  It  is  the  first  assumption 
which  vitiates  both  his  and  their  whole  subsequent  chain  of  reasoning.  It  is  ob- 
vious enough  that  freedom  of  thought  and  conscience  do  tend  to  shake  that  Author- 
ity which  all  parties  have  begun  by  admitting  it  to  be  indispensable  to  maintain. 
Hence  freedom  of  thought  and  conscience  are  bad  things.  No  reasoning  can  be 
more  conclusive,  the  premise  being  assumed.  Hence  investigation  is  stifled,  until 
men  grow  bold  enough  to  ask :  What  is  the  use  of  the  priestly  bigot  and  intellec- 
tual tyrant  at  all? 

So  in  the  political  sphere.  The  petty  prince  of  some  obscure  principality  per- 
haps honestly  desires  the  education  and  advancement  of  his  subjects.  He  encou- 
rages schools,  literature,  and  the  freedom  of  the  press;  but  he  has  never  had  any 
other  thought  than  that  all  this  is  to  go  along  with  the  statu  quo,  in  relation  to  him- 
self and  his  right  to  reign.  Presently  the  diffusion  of  learning  and  the  awakening 
of  mind  begin  to  show  themselves  in  bold  and  still  bolder  speculations  about  self- 
government,  monarchical  usurpations,  and  other  matters  which  threaten  danger  to 
statu  quo.  Our  benevolent  despot,  who  has  all  along  tacitly  assumed,  in  perfect 
good  faith,  the  indispensableness  of  his  own  princely  services,  is  alarmed,  and  at- 
tempts to  impose  limits  and  restraints  upon  discussion,  for  the  good  of  the  people. 
This  is  all  the  more  diflicult  for  the  education  they  have  already  received.  Specu- 
lation grows  bolder  and  resistance  more  rampant  as  the  result  of  the  attempt. 
Repression,  at  all  hazards,  then  becomes  the  only  resort  of  the  unconscious  tyrant, 
who  at  every  step  has  acted,  as  he  thinks,  for  the  best  good  of  his  thankless  and 
rebellious  subjects.  Submission,  or  bloodshed  and  butchen,',  are  their  only  alter- 
native. Reaction  and  Revolution  are  arrayed  in  deadly  hostility  against  each 
other,  and  the  monarch  and  the  conservative  portion  of  the  people  arc  driven  to  the 
only  conclusion  to  which  they  ca.n  arrive,  —  that  education  and  mental  enlargement 
are  destructive  and  bad  things,  a  diabolical  element  in  human  society.  The  fatal 
blunder  is  the  assumption,  as  a  starting-point,  that  there  is  something  now  exist- 
ing which  must  not,  in  any  event,  be  changed.  To  keep  good  this  assumption  uo- 
thitu;  must  be  changed,  for,  when  change  begins,  it  will  not  respect  your  bounds 
and  limits.  Hence  ignorance  and  universal  immobility  must  be  .sedulously  pre- 
served. No  sound  philosophy  can  ever  exist  which  is  tainted  by  veneration  for  the 
sanctities  of  the  old. 

The  new  in  one  thing  necessitates  the  new  in  all  things,  to  the  extent  that  adap- 


IG  Love^  3farriage,  and  Divorce. 

tation  and  adjustment  may  demand.  Let  him  who  is  unready  for  such  sweeping 
revolution  withliold  liis  hand  before  he  begins  to  agitate  for  reform.  Prejudice 
and  philosophy  do  not  and  cannot  comport  with  each  other. 

In  the  same  manner  freedom  is  the  open  boast,  the  watchword,  and  the  rallying 
cry  of  all  the  most  advanced  nations  of  Christendom.  But  there  is  a  tacit  assuinj> 
tion  in  the  midst  of  all  this  that  the  family  institution  must  forever  remain  in- 
tact. It  is  the  social  idol,  as  royalty  has  been  the  political  and  the  Church  the 
religious  idol  of  mankind.  This  assumption  rests,  as  in  the  other  cases,  upon  an- 
other, —  namely,  tlie  utility,  the  indispensableness  of  that  institution, ^?-.s7,  to  the  pre- 
servation of  purity  in  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes,  and,  secondly,  to  the  proper  care 
and  affectionate  culture  of  children,  and,  Jinalli/,  to  the  protection  and  support  of  the 
weaker  sex.  Sexual  purity,  the  preservation  of  offspring,  and  the  security  of  the 
weaker  sex  are  intuitively  felt  to  be  right  and  good;  hence  the  family,  it  is  as- 
sumed, is  sacred  and  divine,  and  hence,  again,  that  in  no  case  must  it  be  questioned 
or  assailed.  But  freedom  for  the  affections  is  liable  to  pass  the  limits  of  the  family, 
and  freedom  (of  this  sort)  is  therefore  a  bad  thing.  Hence,  at  this  point,  a  reac- 
tion against  freedom. 

The  general  human  mind  seldom  mistakes  in  reasoning.  The  error,  if  there  be 
one,  is  more  commonly  the  false  assumption  of  some  fact  or  facts  to  reason  from, 
or  else  incompleteness  in  carrying  on  the  process  to  its  final  results.  If  the  fact  be 
so  that  purity  can  be  cultivated  and  preserved,  children  properly  reared,  and  women 
protected  only  in  the  family,  all  the  other  consequences  logically  follow;  and  there 
is  one  species  of  human  freedom  —  an  exception  to  the  general  estimate  of  that  at- 
tribute of  manhood  —  a  curse  and  a  blight  instead  of  a  blessing,  a  thing  to  be 
warred  on  and  exterminated,  not  to  be  aspired  after,  lauded,  and  cherished. 

It  is  certainly  a  legitimate  question  to  ask.  Is  the  fact  really  so?  Are  the  three 
desiderata  I  have  indicated  only  attainable  through  a  certain  existing  institution 
which  mankind  have,  marvellously  enough,  had  the  wisdom  to  establish  —  in  the 
midst  of  their  general  ignorance  and  undevelopment  in  all  other  respects — up- 
on precisely  the  right  basis? 

First,  then,  as  respects  the  first  point,  the  preservation  of  sexual  purity.  To  de- 
termine whether  perpetual  and  exclusive  marriage  is  essential  to  that  end,  we  must 
first  answer  the  question:  What  constitutes  purity?  To  this  question,  the  com- 
mon, I  may  say  the  vulgar  answer,  Mr.  Greeley's  answer,  is  fidelity  to  the  mar- 
riage relation  (or,  in  the  absence  of  that  bond,  no  sexual  relations  at  all).  Put  in- 
to categorical  formula,  the  two  propositions  are  then  simply  as  follows :  1.  The 
marriage  institution  is  sacred  because  it  is  indispensable  to  the  preservation  of 
purity.  2.  Purity  is  the  preservation  of  the  marriage  institution.  Of  course  this 
rotary  method  of  ratiocination  is  simply  absurd  and  cannot  for  a  moment  satisfy 
the  really  philosophical  or  inquiring  mind. 

Let  me,  then,  give  a  different  answer  to  this  question,  and  see  who  will  demur. 


Love^  Marriaye^  and  Divorce.  17 

Sexual  purity,  I  will  say,  is  that  kind  of  relation,  whatever  it  he,  between  the  sexes  which 
contributes  in  the  highest  degree  to  their  mutual  health  and  happiness,  taking  into  account 
the  remote  as  well  as  the  immediate  results. 

If  this  deliiiition  is  accepted,  theu  clearly  the  whole  field  is  open  to  new,  radical, 
and  scientific  iuvestigation,  physiological,  psychological,  and  economical,  infinitely 
broader  and  more  thorough  than  the  world  has  ever  yet  even  thought  of  applying; 
and  he  nmst  be  a  fearful  egotist  who,  in  the  present  stage  of  our  experience,  can  ven- 
ture to  afluni  that  he  knows  the  whole  truth,  the  final  word  of  science,  on  the  sub- 
ject. One  thing  only  is  certain,  —  namely,  that  absolute  freedom,  accompanied, 
too,  by  the  temporary  evils  of  an  ignorant  use  of  that  freedom,  is  a  condition  pre- 
cedent even  to  furnish  the  facts  upon  wliich  to  reason  safely  at  all  upon  the  matter. 
Any  settlement  of  the  question  by  us  now  would  have  hardly  as  much  value  as  a 
decision  made  in  the  heart  of  Russia  upon  the  best  form  of  human  government. 
Xo  pretension  can  be  made  that  purity,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  use  the  term,  has 
ever  yet  been  attained  by  laws  to  enforce  it.  Prostitution,  in  marriage  and  out  of 
it,  and  solitary  vice,  characterize  society  as  it  is. 

If  the  workings  of  freedom  should  prove  that  purity  in  this  sense  is  attainable 
otherwise,  this  argument  in  behalf  of  compulsory  marriage  fails.  On  the  contrary, 
if  freedom  is  forever  prohibited  hereafter,  as  it  forever  has  been  prohibited  hereto- 
fore, how  is  it  to  be  known  that  such  a  result  would  not  come  of  it?  One  portion 
of  mankind  believe  there  would,  and  another  that  there  would  not,  while  the  op- 
portunity is  refused  to  submit  the  question  to  the  test  of  experiment  and  fact. 

The  second  point  is  the  care  and  culture  of  children.  Certainly  small  boast  can 
be  made  of  the  success  of  mankind  hitherto  in  the  practice  of  that  art,  when  sta- 
tistics inform  us  that  nearly  one-half  the  whole  human  family  die  in  infancv! 
And  when  nine-tenths  of  the  remainder  are  merely  grown-up  abortions,  half  made 
before  birth,  and  worse  distorted  and  perverted  by  ignorant  mismanagement  and 
horrible  abuses  afterward!  Alas!  Do  children  get  cared  for  and  reared  in  the 
family  arrangement  now  with  any  skill,  any  true  science,  any  just  appreciation  of 
the  real  nature  of  that  sublime  but  delicate  task,  whicli  demands  more  precise 
knowledge,  more  refined  instincts,  and  more  prudence  an<l  judgment  than  any 
other?  Do  our  existing  domestic  institutions  commend  themselves  by  their  fruits, 
or  are  the  wholesale  infanticides  and  the  dreadful  tortures  of  childhood  now  pre- 
valent of  a  kind,  the  bare  repetition  of  which  will  cause  the  ears  of  a  later  and 
wiser  generation  to  tingle?  Is  it  not  possible  that  our  most  cherished  social  usages 
may  be  as  terrible  to  them  to  contemplate  as  the  hecatombs  of  political  murders 
by  the  Neapolitan  Government  are  at  this  day  to  us? 

Supi)Ose,  now,  that  a  future  experience  should  demonstrate  the  fact  that,  of  chil- 
dren reared  in  unitary  nurseries,  conducted  by  skilled  and  professional  nurses, 
matrons,  and  physiologists,  the  mothers  —  except  those  engaged  by  choice  in  the 
nui-sery — being,  at  most,  within  reach  for  the  purpose  of  suckling  their  infnnts  at 


18  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

given  hours,  not  one  in  a  hundred  died  during  the  first  five  years;  suppose  that, 
by  such  an  arrangement,  the  same  labor  that  now  requires  the  time  of  fifty  women 
could  be  80  systemised  as  to  occupy  no  more  than  that  of  five,  leaving  forty-five 
persons  free  for  productive  industry  in  other  departments;  suppose  that  the  chil- 
dren so  reared  grew  up  with  larger  frames  and  sounder  constitutions,  brighter  in- 
tellects, livelier  affections,  and  superior  faculties  in  every  way;  suppose  that  all 
this  were  so  obvious  and  incontestable  that  no  one  ventured  to  dispute  it,  and  so 
attractive  that  hardly  any  mother  would  desire  or  venture  to  attempt  the  isolated 
rearing  of  her  babe,  —  what  would  become  of  this  second  ground  upon  which  the 
family  institution  is  maintained  by  force  of  arms  as  the  sole  means  of  appropriate 
guardianship  for  childhood? 

The  third  and  last  basis  of  the  family  is  the  protection  and  maintenance  of 
women  themselves.  Here  again  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  the  system  in  vogue, 
by  which  the  husband  and  father  earns  all  the  money  and  doles  it  out  in  charitable 
pittances  to  wife  and  daughters,  who  are  kept  as  helpless  dependents,  in  ignorance 
of  business  and  the  responsibilities  of  life,  has  achieved  any  decided  title  to  our 
exalted  admiration.  The  poor  stipendiaries  of  paternal  or  marital  munificence  are 
liable  at  any  time  to  be  thrown  upon  their  own  resources,  with  no  resources  to  be 
thrown  upon.  The  absence  of  all  prior  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  prevision  un- 
fitting them  for  self-support  and  protection,  and  the  system  affording  them  none 
but  the  most  precarious  assurances,  their  liabilities  are  terrible,  and  daily  experi- 
ences are  cruel  in  the  extreme.  At  the  best,  and  while  the  protection  endures,  its 
results  are  mental  imbecility  and  bodily  disease.  There  is  hardly  one  woman  in 
ten  in  our  midst  who  knows  from  year's  end  to  year's  end  what  it  is  to  enjoy  even 
tolerable  health.  The  few  who,  despite  the  system,  attain  some  development,  are 
tortured  by  the  consciousness  and  the  mortific&tion  of  their  dependancy,  and  the 
perpetual  succession  of  petty  annoyances  incident  to  it;  of  which  their  lordly  com- 
panions, self-gratulatory  for  thek  own  intentions  of  kindness,  are  profoundly  un- 
conscious. Shut  up  to  the  necessity  of  this  continuous  and  exhausting  endurance, 
wives  have  the  same  motives  that  slaves  have  for  professing  contentment,  and 
smile  deceitfully  while  the  heart  swells  indignantly  and  the  tear  trembles  in  the 
eye.  Man  complains  habitually  of  the  waywardness  and  perversity  of  woman,  and 
never  suspects  that  he  himself,  and  his  own  false  relations  to  her,  are  the  key  to 
the  thousand  apparent  contradictions  in  her  deportment  and  character.  The  last 
thing  that  the  husband  is  likely  to  know,  in  marriage  as  it  is,  is  the  real  state  of 
the  heart  that  throbs  next  him  as  he  lays  his  head  upon  his  own  pillow.  Woman, 
as  well  as  the  slave,  must  first  be  wholly  free  before  she  can  afford  to  take  the  risk 
to  speak  freely.  She  dare  not  utter  boldly  her  own  complaint,  and  she  will  even 
denounce  openly,  while  she  prays  fervently  in  secret  for  the  God-speed  of  the  friend 
who  does  it  for  her. 

The  great  lesson  for  the  world  to  learn  is  that  human  beings  do  not  need  to  he  taken 


Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  19 

care  of.  What  they  do  ueed.  is  such  couditious  of  justice  and  freedom  and  friendly 
cooperation  that  they  can  take  care  of  themselves.  Provided  for  l>y  another,  and  sub- 
ject to  his  will  as  the  return  tribute,  they  pine,  and  sicken,  and  die.  This  is  true 
equally  of  women  as  of  men;  as  true  of  wives  as  it  is  of  vassals  or  serfs.  Our 
whole  existing  marital  system  is  the  house  of  bondage  and  the  slaughter-house  of 
the  female  sex.  Whether  its  evils  are  inherent  or  incidental,  whether  they  belong 
to  the  essence  or  the  administration  of  the  institution,  whether  they  are  remediable 
without  or  only  by  means  of  revolution,  are  the  questions  that  have  now  to  be 
discussed. 

Suppose,  then,  that  in  some  future  day,  under  the  operation  of  equity,  and  with 
such  provision  as  has  been  hinted  at  for  the  care  of  children,  women  find  it  as  easy 
to  earn  an  independent  living  as  men ;  and  that,  by  the  same  arrangement,  the  ex- 
j^nse  of  rearing  a  child  to  the  early  age  at  which,  by  other  corresponding  arrange- 
ments, it  is  able  to  earn  its  own  living,  is  reduced  to  a  minimum,  —  a  slight 
consideration  for  either  parent.  Suppose  that  suggestions  of  economy  have  sub- 
stituted the  large  unitary  edifice  for  the  isolated  home,  and  that,  freed  by  these 
changes  from  the  care  of  the  nursery  and  the  household,  woman  is  enabled,  even 
while  a  mother,  to  select  whatever  calling  or  profession  suits  her  tastes,  and  pursue 
it  with  devotion,  or  vary  it  at  will;  and  suppose  that,  under  this  system  of  living, 
universal  health  returns  to  bloom  upon  her  cheek,  and  that  she  develops  new  and 
unexpected  powers  of  mind,  exquisiteness  of  taste,  and  charms  of  person ;  that,  in 
fine,  while  relieving  the  other  sex  entirely  from  the  responsibility  and  burden  of 
her  support,  she  proves  incontestably  her  equality  with  man  in  points  where  it  has 
been  denied,  and  her  superiority  in  a  thousand  beautiful  endowments  which  free- 
dom alone  has  enabled  her  to  discover  and  exhibit, — what,  under  these  circuni- 
stances,  becomes  of  the  third  and  last  necessity  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
institution  of  exclusive  and  perpetual  and  compulsory  marriage? 

Carry  this  supposition  still  further;  assume,  for  illustration,  that  in  freedom  the 
tendency  to  perpetual  conjugal  partnership  should  vindicate  itself,  as  supposed  by 
Mr.  James,  as  the  natural  law  of  the  subject;  or  contrariwise,  let  it  be  assumed 
that  a  well-ordered  variety  in  the  love  relations  is  shown  by  experience  to  be  just 
as  essential  to  the  highest  development  of  the  human  being,  both  spiritually  and 
materially,  as  variety  in  food,  occupation,  or  anmsement;  or  suppose,  to  render  the 
case  still  stronger,  that  some  new  and  striking  pathological  fact  is  discovered  and 
put  beyond  doubt;  for  example,  that  a  specific  disease,  at  present  a  scourge  of 
mankind,  like  consumption  or  scrofula,  is  wholly  due  to  the  want  of  certain  subtile 
magnetic  influences,  which  can  only  come  from  a  more  unrestrained  contact  and 
freedom  of  association  between  the  sexes.  Let  us  add  that  just  that  freedom  of 
contact  and  association  are  found  to  moderate  the  passions  instead  of  inflaming 
them,  and  so  to  contribute,  in  the  hii^liest  degree,  to  a  general  purity  of  life  and  the 
prevalence  of  the  most  fraternal  and  tender  re'_r:uil.     Suppose.  uMin,  fliat  woman, 


20  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce, 

when  free,  should  exhibit  au  inherent,  God-given  tendency  to  accept  only  the  no- 
blest and  most  highly  endowed  of  the  opposite  sex  to  be  the  recipients  of  her  choic- 
est favors  and  the  sires  of  her  offspring,  rejecting  the  males  of  a  lower  degree,  as 
the  females  of  some  species  of  the  lower  animals  (who  enjoy  the  freedom  that 
woman  does  not)  are  known  to  do ;  and  that  the  grand  societary  fact  should  appear 
in  the  result  that  by- this  means  Nature  has  provided  for  an  infinitely  higher  deve- 
lopment of  the  race.  Suppose,  indeed,  finally,  that  the  freedom  of  woman  is  found 
by  experience  to  have  in  every  way  a  healthful,  restraining,  and  elevating  influence, 
in  the  same  degree  that  the  freedom  of  man,  to  subjugate  her,  as  in  polygamic  na- 
tions, has  had  an  influence  to  degrade  and  deteriorate  the  race;  and  that,  gene- 
rally, God  and  nature  have  evidently  delegated  to  woman  the  supremacy  in  tlie 
whole  affectional  realm  of  human  affairs,  as  they  have  consigned  it  to  man  in  the 
intellectual,  —  a  function  she  could  never  begin  rightly  to  perform  until  first  freed 
herself  from  the  trammels  of  conventionalism,  the  false  sanctities  of  superstition 
and  custom.  Suppose  all  this  to  have  been  thoroughly  well-established  both  by 
reason  and  fact,  what  then  becomes  of  this  last  ground  of  necessity  for  the  institu- 
tion of  legal  marriage,  or  of  marriage  at  all? 

When  purity,  in  its  best  sense,  should  be  far  better  understood,  and  more  pre- 
valent without  it  than  with  it,  and  women  and  children  better  protected  and  pro- 
vided for,  where  would  be  the  continued  demand  for  the  maintenance  of  the  now 
sacred  and  inviolable  family  institution?  What,  indeed,  would  render  it  impossi- 
ble that  that  institution  should  fall  into  contempt,  as  other  institutions,  hallowed 
in  former  times  by  equally  sacred  associations  and  beautiful  idealizations,  have 
done? 

Who  can  foretell  that  isolated  families  may  not  come  hereafter  to  be  regarded 
as  hot-beds  of  selfishness  and  narrow  prejudice  against  the  outside  world,  separat- 
ing and  destroying  the  unity  of  the  human  race;  the  same  thing  as  between  neigh- 
bors that  patriotic  prejudices  and  antipathies  and  "mountains  interposed"  are 
between  nations?  Who  shall  say  that  it  may  not,  perchance,  be  quoted  upon  us 
one  or  more  generations  hence,  as  some  evidence  of  our  barbarism,  that  a  rich  and 
religious  citizen  could  sit  down  in  quiet  and  happiness,  surrounded  by  his  wife  and 
children,  in  the  midst  of  comfort  and  luxury,  bless  God  for  his  abundant  mercies, 
and  cite  the  Scripture  that  "  He  who  provides  not  for  his  own  household  hath  de- 
nied the  faith,  and  is  worse  than  au  infidel,"  while  wretched  women  and  babes, 
with  sensibilities  as  keen  and  capacities  for  happiness  as  great  as  those  possessed 
by  his  own  swee*  lambs,  sit  in  their  desolate  houses  within  a  stone's  throw  of  his 
own  aristocratic  door,  shivering  with  cold,  pinched  with  hunger,  and  trembling 
with  apprehension  of  the  sharp  knock  and  gruff  voice  of  a  landlord's  agent,  come 
to  thrust  them  out  of  even  those  miserable  mockeries  of  homes?  Who  can  assert 
with  confidence  that  a  larger  conception  of  the  bvotlierhood  of  humanity  than  now 
prevails  —  except  as  a  traditional  reminiscence  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  or  the 


Love,  ]\farrl(ffip,  and  Divorce.  21 

Utopian  dreams  of  the  visionary  —  may  not,  in  a  few  years,  with  the  rapid  progress 
of  events  in  these  modern  times,  be  translated  into  fact?  And  who  can  affirm 
positively  that  the  discovery  may  not  be  made  hereafter  that  the  last  grand  hin- 
drance and  obstacle  to  the  realization  of  that  noble  ideal  of  human  destiny  was  the 
superstitious  sanctification  in  the  popular  mind  of  marriage  and  the  family  institu- 
tion, which  refused  to  permit  them  to  be  examined  and  an^nded,  or  abolished, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  sound  reason  and  the  exigencies  of  the  case,  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  like  veneration  for  ecclesiastical  establishments  and  royalty 
have  hindered  the  race,  at  earlier  stages,  in  the  same  onward  and  upward 
progression  ? 

Observe,  I  am  not  dogmatizing  in  anything  that  I  say  here.  I  am  not  even  af- 
firming that  any  one  of  these  suppositions  is  likely  to  come  true.  I  am  simply  es- 
tablishing the  fact  that  the  righteousness  and  permanency  of  marriage  and  the 
family  institution  are  fair  subjects,  like  any  other,  for  thought,  for  questioning,  for 
investigation.  I  am  entering  my  calmly-stated  but  really  indignant  protest  against 
the  assumption  that  there  is  any  possible  subject,  in  this  age  and  nation,  with  our 
antecedents  and  pretensions,  too  sacred  to  be  discussed.  I  am  adding  my  testi- 
mony to  the  truth  of  the  position  assumed  by  the  despotist  and  the  slaveholder 
that  the  same  evils  which  exist  under  the  institutions  of  despotisms  and  slavery 
exist  likewise  under  the  institution  of  marriage  and  the  family,  and  that  the  same 
principles  of  right  which  men  seek  to  apply  in  this  day  to  the  former  will  not  leave 
the  latter  unquestioned  or  unscathed.  I  am  giving  to  the  lazy  public  some  intima- 
tion that  there  are  more  thing.s  in  heaven  and  earth  than  have  yet  been  dreamed 
of  in  their  philosophy.  I  am  breaking  into  ripples  the  glassy  surface  of  that  dead 
sea  of  conservatism  which  reflects  Socialism  as  a  bugbear  to  frighten  children  with. 
I  am  giving  to  the  world  a  sample  of  the  ideas,  and  trains  of  reasoning,  facts,  and 
principles  which  the  New  York  "Tribune,"  professedly  the  organ  of  new  thought, 
refuses  to  permit  to  be  communicated  to  its  readers,  as  matter  too  bad  to  be  pub- 
lished. And  finally,  and  specially,  I  am  making  an  historical  note  of  the  fact,  for 
future  reference,  that  such  ideas  as  these  were  too  far  in  advance  of  public  senti- 
ment, at  the  middle  of  this  century,  at  the  metropolis  of  the  most  progressive 
country  in  the  world,  to  find  utterance  anywhere  through  the  public  press,  the 
"Tribune"  being,  after  all,  the  most  liberal  journal  we  have  yet  established 
among  us. 

What  I  am  able  to  say  in  this  brochure  is,  of  course,  a  mere  fragment  of  the  so- 
cial theories  which  I  wished  to  propound.  What  I  needed  was  a  continuous  year 
of  discussion,  through  such  a  medium  a.s  the  "  Tribune,"  in  conflict  with  the  first 
minds  in  the  country,  —  philosophers,  politicians,  and  theologians,  invited  or  pro- 
voked into  the  fray,  —  at  the  end  of  which  time  the  public  would  have  begun  to 
discover  that  their  current  social  dogmas  must  give  way  before  the  sublime  principles 
of  a  new  and  profoumlly  important  srionce.  wliirh  d.'fcriiiiiif-^  nT-u-tlv  the  true 


22  Love^  JIarriogc,  and  Divorce. 

basis  of  all  social  relations.  I  wanted  especially  to  propound  a  few  questions  to 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Bethuiie,  to  test  the  good  faith  of  liis  broad  statement  of  the  doctrine 
of  religious  freedom,  made  in  his  assault  upon  Bisliop  Hughes  at  the  Madiai  meet- 
ing at  Metropolitan  Hall.  Does  he  include  the  Mormons  and  tlie  Turks,  with  their 
polygamy,  and  the  Perfectionists,  with  their  free  love,  in  his  toleration,  or  would 
he,  with  Mr.  Greeley,  make  his  exceptions  when  it  came  to  the  pinch,  and  go  with 
Mr.  Greeley  for  re-lighting  on  American  soil  the  fires  of  religious  persecution,  ami 
thrust  those  whose  conscience  differs  from  his  upon  certain  points  into  prison,  or 
burn  them  at  the  stake? 

The  question  is  rapidly  becoming  a  practical  one  in  this  country,  when  a  whole 
territory  is  already  in  the  possession  of  a  sect  of  religionists  who  openly  profess 
and  are  ready  to  die  for  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  wives.  Honor  to  General 
Cass,  the  patriarch  of  the  senate,  who  has  recently  stated  the  true  and  the  truly 
American  principle, — virtually  the  Sovereignty  of  the  Individual.  He  speaks  as 
follows : 

Independent  of  its  connection  with  the  human  destiny  hereafter,  I  believe  the  fate  of  re- 
publican governments  is  indissolubly  bound  up  with  that  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that 
people  who  reject  its  holy  faitli  will  find  themselves  the  slaves  of  evil  passions  and  of  arbi- 
trary power,  and  I  am  free  to  acknowledge  that  I  do  not  see  altogether  without  anxiety  some 
of  the  signs  which,  shadowed  forth  around  us  by  weak  imaginations  with  some,  and  irregu- 
lated  passion  with  others,  are  producing  founders  and  followers  of  strange  doctrines,  whoso 
tendencies  it  is  easier  to  perceive  than  it  is  to  account  for  their  origin  and  progress;  but  they 
icilljind  their  remedy,  not  in  legislation,  but  in  a  sound  religious  opinion,  whether  they  in- 
culcate an  appeal  to  God  by  means  of  stocks,  and  stones,  and  rappings  (the  latest  and  most  rid- 
iculous experiment  upon  human  credulity),  or  whether  they  seek  to  pervert  the  Scriptures 
to  the  purposes  of  their  libidinous  passions,  by  destroying  that  safeguard  of  religion  and  so- 
cial order,  the  institution  of  marriage,  and  by  leading  lives  of  unrestrained  intercourse, — 
thus  making  proselytes  to  a  miserable  imposture,  unworthy  of  our  nature,  by  the  temptations 
of  unbridled  lust.  This  same  trial  was  made  in  Germany  some  three  centuries  ago,  in  a 
period  of  strange  abominations,  and  failed.  It  will  fail  here.  Where  the  Word  of  God  is 
free  to  all,  no  such  vile  doctrine  can  permanently  establish  itself. 

This  is  a  genuine  though  indirect  recognition  of  individual  sovereignty;  and, 
while  marred  by  a  few  ungentlemanly  flings  at  what  the  speaker  obviously  docs 
not  understand,  it  is  as  much  above  the  puny  and  miserable  suppression  doctrines 
of  Mr.  Greeley — the  sickly  relics  of  the  dark  ages  —  as  the  nineteenth  century  is 
in  advance  of  the  twelfth. 

By  my  reference  to  Dr.  Bethune,  it  is  but  justice  to  say  that  I  have  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  he,  too,  is  honest  in  his  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  religious  freedom, 
and  that  he  would,  in  practice,  recognize  my  right  to  live  with  tliree  women,  if  my 
conscience  approved,  as  readily  and  heartily  as  he  would  contend  for  the  right  to 
read  the  Protestant  Bible  at  Florence.  If  not,  I  hope  he  will  take  an  opportunity 
to  restate  his  position.     I  needed  a  lengthened  discussion,  as  I  said,  not  only  to  ex- 


Lovc^  j\farrl(irje^  (ind  Divorce.  23 

press  my  own  ideas,  but  also  to  fiiul  where  others  actually  stand  upon  this  most 
vital  question,  —  the  legitimate  limit  of  human  freedom.  Hut  such  discussions, 
carried  on  with  the  dauntless  intrepidity  of  truth-seeking,  are  not  for  the  columns 
of  the  "Tribune."  The  readers  of  that  journal  must  be  kept  in  the  dark.  I  8ul> 
mit,  and  await  the  establishment  of  another  organ.  Meantime,  those  who  may 
chance  to  become  interested  in  ta  more  thorough  exhibit  of  principles  stated  or  ad- 
verted to  in  these  pages  are  referred  to  "Equitable  Commerce"  and  "Practical 
Details  in  Equitable  Commerce,"  by  JosiAii  Warre.v,  and  "The  Science  of  So- 
ciety," by  myself,  published  by  Fowlers  &  Wells,  New  York,*  and  John  Chapman, 
London,  which  I  take  this  opportunity  thus  publicly  to  advertise,  since  the  news- 
paper press  generally  declines  to  notice  them,  and  to  such  other  works  as  may  be 
hereafter  announced  on  the  subject. 

Stephen  Peaul  Andrews. 
New  York,  April,  1853. 

•"  The  Siienco  of  Society  "  is  now  imblished  by  Sarah  E.  Uolmes,  Box  33C6,  Boston,  Maa» 


24  LovCs  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 


DISCUSSION. 


MR.  JAMES'S  KEPLY  TO  THE  NEW  YOUK  OBSEUVER. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune: 

Please  :illo\v  me  the  liospitality  of  youv  paper  to  right  myself  with  the  New  York 
"Observer,"  and  so  add  to  the  inauy  obligations  I  already  owe  you. 

Yours  truly,  H.  James, 

novemueu  15. 

New  1''ouk,  Saturday,  Nov.  13,  1852. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Observer: 

All  article  in  your  paper  of  today  does  me  so  much  injustice  that  I  cannot  afford 
to  let  it  pass  unnoticed. 

The  drift  of  your  assault  is  to  charge  me  with  hostility  to  the  marriage  institu- 
tion. This  charge  is  so  far  from  being  true  that  I  have  invariably  aimed  to  ad- 
vance the  honor  of  marriage  by  seeking  to  free  it  from  certain  purely  arbitrary  and 
conventional  obstructions  in  reference  to  divorce.  For  example,  I  have  always 
argued  against  Mr.  Greeley  that  it  was  not  essential  to  the  honor  of  marriage  that 
two  persons  should  be  compelled  to  live  together  when  they  held  the  reciprocal 
relation  of  dog  and  cat,  and  that  in  that  state  of  tilings  divorce  might  profitably 
intervene,  provided  the  parties  guaranteed  the  State  against  the  charge  of  their 
offspring.  I  have  very  earnestly,  and,  as  it  appears  to  me,  very  unanswerably, 
contended  for  a  greater  freedom  of  divorce  on  these  grounds,  in  the  columns  of  the 
"Tribune,"  some  years  since;  but  I  had  no  idea  that  I  was  thus  weakening  the 
respect  of  marriage.  I  seemed  to  myself  to  be  plainly  strengthening  it,  by  remov- 
ing purely  arbitrary  and  damaging  obstructions.  The  existing  difficulty  of  divorce 
is  one  of  those  obstructions.  You  will  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  legislative  sanc- 
tion of  divorce  now  existing  discharges  the  marriage  rite  of  respect?  How,  then, 
shall  any  enlargement  of  that  sanction  which  I  propose  avail  to  do  so?  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  a  person  exposed  to  the  civilizing  influences  of  a  large  city  like  this  so 
long  as  you  have  been  should  see  no  other  security  for  the  faithful  union  of  hus- 


Love^  Marrlfifjp^  and  Divorce.  25 

band  and  wife  than  that  which  dates  from  the  police  office?  I  can  not  believe  it. 
You  must  know  UKuiy  married  parliiers,  if  you  have  been  even  ordinarily  fortunate 
in  your  company,  who,  if  tin;  marriage  institution  were  formally  abolislied  tomor- 
row, would  instantly  annul  that  legal  abolition  again  by  the  unswerving  constancy 
of  their  hearts  and  lives. 

No  man  has  a  more  cordial,  nor,  as  I  conceive,  a  more  enlightened  respect  for 
marriage  than  I  have,  whether  it  be  regarded,  1st,  as  a  beautiful  and  very  perfect 
symbol  of  religious  or  metaphysic  truth,  or,  2d,  as  an  independent  social  institu- 
tion. I  have  fully  shown  its  claim  for  respect  on  both  these  grounds  in  a  number 
of  the  "Tribune"  which  you  quoted  at  the  time,  but  which  it  serves  your  dishon- 
est instincts  now  to  overlook.  You  probably  are  indifferent  to  the  subject  in  its 
higher  and  primary  point  of  view,  but  your  present  article  proves  that  you  have 
some  regard  for  it  in  its  social  aspects.  If  you  regard  marriage,  then,  as  a  social 
institution,  you  will,  of  course,  allow  that  its  value  depends  altogether  upon  the 
uses  it  promotes.  If  these  uses  are  salutary,  the  institution  is  honorable.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  they  are  mischievous,  the  institution  is  deplorable.  Now,  no  one 
charges  that  the  legitimate  uses  of  the  marriage  institution  are  otherwise  than 
good.  But  a  social  institution,  whose  uses  are  intrinsically  good,  may  bo  very 
badly  administered,  and  so  produce  mischief.  This,  I  allege,  is  the  case  with  the 
marriage  institution.  It  is  not  administered  livingly,  or  with  reference  to  the  pre- 
sent need  of  society,  but  only  traditionally,  or  with  reference  to  some  wholly  past 
state  of  society.  In  a  disorderly  condition  of  society,  like  that  from  which  we  have 
for  the  last  two  centuries  been  slowly  emerging,  men  of  wealth  and  power,  men  of 
violence  and  intrigue,  would  have  laughed  at  the  sacredest  affections,  and  rendered 
the  family  security  nugatory,  had  not  society  fortified  marriage  by  the  most  strin- 
gent safeguards.  The  still  glaring  inequality  of  the  sexes,  moreover,  would  have 
led  kings  and  nobles  into  the  most  unrebuked  licentiousness,  and  consequently  into 
the  most  brutal  contempt  for  woman,  had  not  the  politico-ecclesiastical  regime 
almost  utterly  inhibited  divorce.  The  elevation  of  woman  in  Christendom  has 
thus  been  owing  exclusively  to  a  very  rigid  administration  of  the  marriage  insti- 
tution in  the  earlier  periods  of  our  social  history,  But  what  man  of  wealth  and 
power,  what  man  of  violence  and  intrigue,  is  there  now  to  take  away  a  man's  wife 
from  him?  (No  doubt  there  is  a  very  enormous  clandesthie  violation  of  the  mar- 
riage bond  at  the  present  time;  careful  observers  do  not  hesitate  to  say  an  almost 
unequalled  violation  of  it;  but  that  is  an  evil  which  no  positive  legislation  can 
pnivent,  because  it  is  mnnifestlij  based  upon  a  popular  contempt  for  the  present  indolent 
and  vicious  administration  of  the  late.  The  only  possible  chance  for  correcting  it 
depends,  as  I  have  uniformly  insisted,  upon  a  change  in  that  administration, — 
that  is  to  say,  upon  freely  legitimating  <Hvorcc,  within  the  limits  of  a  complete 
guarantee  to  society  against  the  support  of  offspring;  because  in  that  case  you 
place  the  inducement  to  mutual  fulelity  no  longer  in  the  base  legal  bondage  of  the 


26  Love^  ^rarrlafjc^  and  Divorce. 

parties  merely,  but  in  their  reciprocal  inward  sweetness  or  human  ity.  And  this  is 
an  appeal  which,  when  frankly  and  generously  made,  no  man  or  woman  will  ever 
prove  recreant  to. 

Again,  in  the  "Tribune"  article  of  last  summer  which  you  quote  (or,  ratlur, 
shamelessly  misquote)  it  seemed  to  me  the  while  that  I  was  saying  as  good  a  wor.! 
for  marriage  as  had  ever  been  said  beneath  the  stars.  I  was  writing,  to  be  sure, 
upon  a  larger  topic,  and  alluded  to  marriage  only  by  way  of  illustration.  But 
what  I  said  about  it  then  seems  to  me  still  completely  true.  And,  true  or  untrue, 
why  do  you  not  cite  me  before  your  readers  honestly?  You  allow  your  printer  to 
turn  the  first  quotation  you  make  into  sheer  nonsense,  and  you  so  bedevil  the; 
second  with  ostentatious  and  minatory  italics  that  a  heedless  reader  will  look  upon 
the  imbecile  tumefaction  as  so  much  solid  argument,  and  infer  that  any  one  who 
can  provoke  that  amount  of  purely  typographic  malediction  from  a  pioiis  editor 
must  needs  be  closely  affiliated — you  know  where. 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  speculation  merely,  why  should  you  desire  to  prejudice  me 
before  the  community?  I  am  a  humble  individual,  without  any  influence  to  com- 
mend ray  ideas  to  public  acceptance,  apart  from  their  intrinsic  truth.  And  if,  as 
you  allege,  my  desire  and  aim  be  to  destroy  the  marriage  institution,  I  am  at  least 
not  so  foolish  as  to  attempt  that  labor  by  a  mere  exhibition  of  will.  I  must  have 
adduced  some  colorable  reasons  for  its  destruction.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to 
tell  me  where  I  have  exhibited  these  reasons?  Or,  failing  to  do  so,  will  you  be 
good  enough  to  confess  yourself  a  defeated  trickster,  unworthy  the  companion- 
ship of  honest  men? 

Doubtless,  Mr.  Editor,  you  address  an  easy,  good-natured  audience,  who  do  not 
care  to  scan  too  nicely  the  stagnant  slipslop  which  your  weekly  ladle  deals  out  to 
them.  But  the  large  public  perfectly  appreciates  your  flimsy  zeal  for  righteous- 
ness. Every  reasonable  man  knows  that,  if  I  assail  a  cherished  institution  with- 
out the  exhibition  of  valid  reasons,  I  alone  must  prove  the  sufferer,  and  that 
immediately.  Every  such  person  therefore  suspects,  when  a  pious  editor  goes  out 
of  his  way  to  insult  me  for  this  imputed  offence,  that  his  apparent  motive  is  only 
a  mask  to  some  more  real  and  covert  one.  And  this  suspicion  would  be  palpably 
just  in  the  present  instance.  You  are  by  no  means  concerned  about  any  hostility, 
real  or  imaginary,  which  I  or  any  other  person  may  exhibit  toward  the  mariiaL;e 
institution.  I  do  you  the  justice,  on  the  contrary,  to  believe  that  you  would  only 
be  too  happy  to  find  me  and  all  your  other  fancied  enemies  "bringing  up"  —  to 
use  your  own  choice  expression  —  "against  the  seventh  commandment."  But  vvj 
benevolence,  at  least,  is  quite  too  weak  to  afford  you  that  gratification.  Natural- 
ists tell  us  that  the  sepia,  or  cuttle-fish,  when  pursued,  is  in  the  habit  "of  ejecting 
an  mky  fluid,  which  colors  the  adjacent  waters  so  deeply  as  to  afford  it  an  easy 
means  of  escape."  Now,  science,  in  revealing  to  us  the  splendid  analogies  of 
nature,  teaches  us  that  the  sepia,  or  cuttle-fish,  of  these  watery  latitudes  is  only  an 


Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  27 

oblique  or  imperfect  form  of  the  tricky  sectarian  editor  of  higher  ones :  even  as 
that  tricky  editor  is  himself  only  an  oblique  or  imperfect  prophecy  of  the  integral 
MAN  of  still  higher  latitudes.  Accordingly,  if  we  take  the  trouble  to  explore  the 
inky  and  deceptive  puddle  you  have  trajected  in  our  path,  we  shall  find  that  the 
origin  of  your  ill-will  lies  very  much  behind  that.  We  shall  find  that  it  lies  alto- 
gether in  the  criticism  which  I  have  occasionally  brought  to  bear  upon  that  fossil 
and  fatiguing  Christianity,  of  which  the  "Observer"  is  so  afflictive  a  type,  and  its 
editor  so  distinguished  and  disinterested  a  martyr.  Indulge  mo  with  a  few  lines 
upon  this  topic. 

Christianity,  in  its  only  real  or  vital  apprehension,  seems  to  me  to  imply  a  ver}' 
perfect  life  for  man,  or  one  which  safely  disuses  all  professional  knavery,  as  it  is 
sure  to  disappoint  all  merely  professional  or  private  ambition.  I  have  expressed, 
poorly  enough  I  allow,  my  dawning  conception  of  this  majestic  life.  It  is  at  last 
the  veritable  life  of  God  in  the  soul  of  man,  and  one  must  celebrate  it  with  stam- 
mering lips  rather  than  be  wholly  silent.  It  runs  through  one's  veins  like  new 
wine,  and,  if  one's  speech  thereupon  grew  lyrical  and  babbling,  it  should  rather 
be  an  argument  of  praise  to  the  late-found  and  authentic  Bacchus  than  of  blame 
to  his  still  unfashioned  worshipper.  I  have  tried  to  put  this  miraculous  and  divine 
wine  into  our  old  customary  bottles,  but  the  bottles  pop,  whiz,  sputter,  and  crack 
so  on  every  side,  that  my  wife  and  children  and  servants  laughingly  protest  that 
we  shall  have  no  rest  short  of  absolutely  new  bottles.  Now,  these  bottles  admit 
of  no  private  manufacture.  They  are  so  vast  in  compass,  and  so  costly  in  material, 
that  they  claim  all  the  resources  and  all  the  wit  of  society  to  fashion  them.  There 
is  no  harm,  of  course,  in  a  patient  citizen  like  me  occasionally  stirring  up  the  pure 
mind  of  his  brethren  by  way  of  remembrance,  or  indulging  a  word  now  and  then 
upon  the  pattern  the  fabric  should  follow.  Accordingly,  I  do  drop  an  occasional 
word  in  the  columns  of  the  "  Tribune,"  and  would  be  happy  to  do  the  same  in 
those  of  the  "Observer,"  on  this  interesting  topic:  hinting  how,  as  I  conceive,  our 
good  o\i\favnly  bottle,  conjugal  bottle,  and  social  bottle  generally — might  be  des- 
troyed f —  no  I  might  bo  saved  from  destruction,  renewed,  regenerated,  and  reformed, 
by  wise  and  timely  legislation.  I  am  happy  to  say,  too,  that  my  efforts  seem  to  be 
taken  in  growing  good  part.  Virtuous  and  genial  Presbyterians  even,  as  well  as 
mere  unregimented  sinners,  are  beginning  to  express  an  interest  in  the  attractive 
theme,  and  a  hope  of  good  fruit  to  come  out  of  its  seasonable  agitation.  For  it  is 
evident  to  every  honest  mind  that,  if  our  conjugal,  parental,  and  social  ties  gene- 
rally can  be  safely  discharged  of  the  purely  diabolic  element  of  outward  force,  tlicy 
mast  instantly  become  transfigured  by  their  own  inward,  divine,  and  irresistible 
loveliness. 

Hinc  illae  lachrymce!  This  is  the  open  source  of  your  tribulation,  the  palpable 
spring  of  your  ineffectual  venom.  With  the  instinct  unhappily  of  self-preserva- 
tion, you  perceive  that,  if  our  social  relations  once  become  orderly,  not  by  con- 


28  Love^  Marriage,  and  Divorce, 

straint,  but  of  an  inherent  and  divine  necessity,  there  will  bje  a  speedy  end  to  the 
empire  of  cant  and  false  pretension.  For  if  a  living  piety  once  invade  the  human 
mind,  a  piety  attuned  to  the  ministries  of  science,  a  piety  which  celebrates  God  no 
longer  as  the  mere  traditional  source  of  lapsed  and  contingent  felicities,  but  as  tlie 
present  and  palpable  doer  of  divinest  deeds,  —  such  as  feeding  the  starving  hordes 
of  the  earth's  population,  clothing  the  naked,  enlightening  the  ignorant,  comfort- 
ing the  dejected,  breaking  the  yoke  of  every  oppression,  cleansing  the  diseased 
conscience,  banishing  want,  and  sickness,  and  envy,  and  diffusing  universal  plenty, 
peace,  and  righteousness, — what,  in  Heaven's  name,  will  become  of  that  vapid 
piety  which  now  exhales  only  in  the  form  of  selfish  and  mendicant  supplication, 
or  else  of  impudent  interference  with  the  privacies  of  other  people's  souls? 

I  have  not  yet  had  the  pleasure  of  reading  any  of  Mrs.  Smith's  publications,  and 
can  not,  therefore,  estimate  your  candor  in  associating  her  labors  with  mine.  But 
inasmuch  as  I  perceive  from  the  newspapers  that  that  well-intentioned  lady  is 
engaged  in  a  very  arduous  crusade  against  the  natural  and  obvious  distinction  of 
the  sexes,  the  which  distinction  I  meanwhile  set  great  store  by,  I  presume  your 
good  will  in  this  instance  to  be  as  transparent  as  I  have  found  it  in  others,  and 
thank  you  accordingly. 

As  to  your  attempt  to  insinuate  a  community  of  purpose  or  tendency  between 
myself  and  that  ramification  of  your  own  religious  body,  known  as  the  Oneida 
Perfectionists,  I  may  safely  leave  it  to  the  scorn  of  those  among  your  readers  who 
can  estimate  the  cowardice  which,  in  wanton  disregard  of  a  neighbor's  good  name, 
hints  and  insinuates  the  calumny  it  dares  not  boldly  mouth.  These  men,  as  I 
learn  from  their  own  story,  are  ultra  —  that  is  to  say,  consistent  —  Calvinists,  who 
have  found  in  the  bosom  of  the  doctrines  you  yourself  profess  the  logical  warrant 
of  the  practices  which  you  nevertheless  condemn.  From  a  conversation  or  two 
which  I  have  had  with  some  of  their  leaduig  men,  I  judged  them  to  be  persons  of 
great  sincerity,  but  of  deplorable  fanaticism,  who  were  driven  to  the  lengths  whicli 
you  so  sternly  reprobate  strictly  because  they  exemplify  what  you  do  not,  —  a  logi- 
cal abandonment  to  their  own  religious  convictions.  I  told  them  candidly  that 
any  man  of  common  sense  must  give  short  shrift  in  his  regard  to  a  deity  who 
elected  men  to  the  privilege  of  leading  disorderly  lives;  but  at  the  same  time  I  saw 
that  they  were  no  way  amenable  to  the  tribunal  of  common  sense.  An  unhappy 
religious  fanaticism,  the  flowering  of  your  own  fundamental  principles,  has  lifted 
them  out  of  that  wholesome  judicature,  and  they  must  henceforth  drift  whitherso- 
ever the  benignant  powers  —  who,  after  all,  are  paramount  in  this  world,  spite  of 
many  "Observers  "  — will  let  them.  But  at  the  same  time  I  must  avow  that  these 
strenuous  and  unhandsome  sectarists  appeared  to  me  far  worthier  of  tender  com- 
passion than  of  brutal  public  vituperation.  Honest,  upright  souls  they  seemed  at 
bottom,  though  sadly  misguided  by  an  insane  sense  of  duty,  and  delicate  women 
were  among  them,  too,  full  no  doubt  of  woman's  indestructible  truth.     They  were 


Love^  Marriafje^  and  Divorce.  29 

fathers,  and  husbands,  and  brothers,  like  njyself,  disfigured,  to  be  sure,  by  a  mor- 
bid religious  conscience,  but  no  less  capable  of  suffering  on  that  account  whatever 
I  suffered.  And  so  I  could  not  help  saying  to  myself  how  surely  must  errors  like 
these  involve  this  poor  unprotected  people  in  permanent  popular  disgrace,  or  what 
is  worse,  perhaps,  provoke  the  fatal  violence  of  a  disgusting  pharisaic  mob;  and 
how  gladly,  therefore,  must  good  men  of  every  name  rather  lessen  than  deei)en  the 
inevitable  odium  in  which  they  stand  I  Accordingly  it  appears  to  me  about  as  un- 
manly a  sight  as  the  sun  now  shines  upon  to  see  a  great  prosj)erous  newspaper  like 
the  New  York  "Observer"  gathering  together  the  two  wings  of  its  hebdomadal  fla- 
tulence, "secular"  and  "religious,"  for  a  doughty  descent  ujjon  this  starveling  and 
harmless  field-mouse! 

And  this  reminds  me,  by  the  way,  to  adore  the  beautiful  Nemesis — beautiful  and 
dread!  —  which  in  every  commotion  of  opinion  infallibly  drives  you,  and  persons 
like  you,  into  a  significant  clamor  for  the  interests  of  the  Seventh  Commandment. 
Whence  this  special  zeal,  this  supererogatory  devotion  to  the  interests  of  that  in- 
stitution? Have  you,  then,  a  fixed  conviction  that  no  man,  however  refined  by 
God's  culture  and  the  elevation  of  our  present  social  sentiment,  could  l)u  exempted 
from  police  regulation  without  instantly  rushing  into  adultery?  It  would  really 
seem  so.  But  if  that  be  your  state  of  mind,  it  only  furnishes  another  striking 
proof  of  the  power  which  your  friends  the  Socialists  attribute  to  constraint  in  en- 
hancing and  inflaming  the  normal  appreciation  of  sensual  delights. 

And  here  I  drop  my  pen.  I  have  used  it  freely  to  express  the  indignation  which 
every  true  man  must  feel  at  seeing  an  eminent  public  station,  like  that  of  the  edi- 
tor of  a  religious  newspaper,  perverted  to  the  wanton  defamation  of  private  clia- 
racter  and  the  profligate  obstruction  of  humane  enterprise. 

I  am  yours,  etc., 
^  Henry  James. 

Then  followed  several  comnuuiications  between  the  "Observer"  and  Mr.  James, 
which  are  omitted.  Anything  in  them  pertinent  to  this  discussion  is  contained  in 
the  excerpts  indicated  by  quotation  marks. 


30  Xtove^  Marriage^  and  Divorce, 


I 


n. 

queries  to  mr.  james,  by  mli.  andrews. 

New  York,  Friday,  Nov.  26, 1852. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Tribune: 

I  have  read  with  some  interest  a  recent  article  in  the  "Tribune,"  by  Henry 
James,  in  reply  to  an  "  assault "  upon  him,  made  by  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
"  Observer,"  on  the  Marriage  Question.  Perhaps  it  would  be  discourteous  to  say 
that,  in  relation  to  the  issue  of  the  conflict  between  these  parties,  I  am  quite  indif- 
ferent. My  own  opinions  differ  considerably  from  those  avowed  by  either  of  tlie 
contestants.  My  curiosity  is  piqued,  however,  by  the  positions  assumed  by  Mr. 
James,  to  see  how  he  will  maintain  himself,  and  I  find  myself  given  over  to  a  sort 
of  "hope-I-don't-intrude"  propensity  to  ask  questions.  Without  venturing  on  pole- 
nucs,  I  may  perhaps  be  allowed,  as  a  third  party,  the  Socratic  privilege  of  propound- 
ing difiiculties  and  seeking  for  further  information. 

It  was  a  saying  of  Daniel  Webster  that,  "if  a  thing  is  to  be  done,  a  wise  man 
should  be  able  to  tell  how  it  is  to  be  done."  Hence,  I  cannot  but  hope  that  Mr. 
James  may  be  able  to  remove  some  of  the  darkness  which  obscures  my  perceptions 
of  the  tenability  of  his  positions.  I  confess  that,  comparing  my  recollections  of 
his  earlier  writings  in  the  "Harbinger"  and  the  "  Tribune"  upon  the  same  subject 
with  the  somewhat  rampant  and  ferocious  morality  of  a  recent  article  in  the  "Tri- 
bune," in  review  of  the  book  of  Dr.  Lazarus,  called  "Love  vs.  Marriage,"  which  I 
attributed  to  his  pen,  I  said  to  myself,  "My  friend,  Mr.  James,  is  certainly  coming 
up  on  both  sides  of  the  same  question."  But  I  now  stand  corrected.  This  still 
more  recent  manifesto  defines  him  with  respect  to  his  position,  if  the  position  itself 
proves  susceptible  of  definition.  He  is  a  "cordial  and  enlightened  respecter  of 
marriage,"  —  a  champion,  indeed,  of  the  institution  of  marriage,  —  but  at  the  same 
time  he  is  in  favor  of  entire  freedom  of  divorce,  "provided  only  the  parties  gua- 
rantee the  State  against  the  charge  of  their  offspring."  He  is  surprised  that  an 
intelligent  man  should  "see  no  other  security  for  the  faithful  union  of  husband  and 
wife  than  that  which  dates  from  the  police  office."     "By  freely  legitimating  di- 


Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce.  31 

vorce  within  the  limits  of  a  complete  guarantee  to  society  against  the  support  of 
offspring,"  you  do,  according  to  him,  "place  the  inducement  to  mutual  fidelity  no 
longer  in  the  base  legal  bondage  of  the  parties  merely,  but  in  their  reciprocal  in- 
ward sweetness  or  humanity." 

In  afl&rming  all  this,  it  seems  to  him  the  while  that  "he  is  saying  as  good  a  word 
for  marriage  as  has  ever  been  said  beneath  the  stars."  He  indignantly  repudiates 
all  affiliation  of  his  doctrines  with  the  laxer  kind  of  morality,  or  the  systematic 
enlargement  of  marital  privileges  by  certain  religious  sectarians,  whom  he  scorn- 
fully pronounces  destitute  of  common  sense,  for  no  better  cause,  so  far  as  he  en- 
ables us  to  discover,  than  that  their  views  differ  from  his,  and  whom,  he  informs 
us,  he,  moved  by  the  divine  afflatus,  lectured  for  their  "  disorderly  lives."  As  Mr. 
James  professes  himself  ready  and  apt  to  instruct  the  public,  and  desirous  withal 
to  forward  "the  good  time  coming"  by  reforming  the  abuses  of  the  institution  of 
marriage,  I  flatter  myself  that  he  cannot  object  to  relieving  a  few  doubts  and  hon- 
est difficulties  which  perplex  my  understanding  of  his  doctrine  upon  the  subject. 

These  doubts  and  difficulties  are  stated  in  the  following  list  of  queries : 

1.  "What  does  ^Ir.  J.  understand  to  be  the  essential  and  determining  element  of 
marriage,  the  kernel  or  s'me  qua  non  of  the  marriage  institution,  after  the  complete 
removal  of  the  characteristic  feature  of  "legal  bondage"  or  "outward  force,"  by 
the  repeal  of  all  laws  sanctioning  and  enforcing  it,  and  after  the  featm'c  of  neces- 
sary perpetuity  is  removed  by  the  entire  freedom  to  end  the  relation  by  the  will  of 
the  parties  at  any  instant?  Noah  Webster  informs  us  that  to  marry  is  to  "join  a 
man  and  woman  for  life,  and  constitute  them  man  and  wife  according  to  the  laws 
and  customs  of  a  nation."  Xow,  any  constraint  from  custom  is  as  much  au  outward 
force  as  a  constraint  by  law,  and,  iu  case  both  these  species  of  constraint  are  re- 
moved, —  that  is,  if  the  man  and  woman  are  joined  with  no  reference  to  either,  but 
simply  with  regard  to  their  mutual  or  individual  choice  and  wishes,  the  miion 
occurring  not  for  life,  but  to  be  dissolved  at  the  option  of  the  parties,  —  both  limbs 
of  the  definition  are  eliminated,  reminding  one  of  the  oft-quoted  expurgation  of  the 
tragedy  of  Hamlet.  It  seems  to  me,  then,  that  I  am  quite  in  order  to  call  for  a 
new  specification  of  the  essentials  of  matrimony.  But  I  am  forgetting  that  Mr.  J. 
still  provides  for  the  ghost  of  a  legal  tie,  in  the  bond  to  be  given  as  a  guarantee  to 
society  against  the  support  of  offspring.     This  brings  me  to  my  second  query. 

2.  Why  —  if  the  maintenance  of  the  unswerving  constancy  of  husband  and  wife 
can  be  .safely  intrusted  to  the  guardianship  of  "  their  r(  nprocal  inward  sweetness 
or  humanity,"  with  no  "base  legal  bondage"  superadded  —  why  may  not  the  care 
and  maintenance  of  offspring  be,  with  equal  safety,  intru.sted  likewise  to  that  same 
"inward  sweetness  or  humanity,"  without  the  supcraddition  of  a  "base  legal  bon- 
dage" or  "outward  force  "?  If  the  first  of  these  social  relations  may  with  safety 
not  only,  but  with  positive  advantage,  be  discharged  of  accountability  to  the  police 
office,  why  not  the  second?    Why,  indeed,  be  at  the  trouble  and  expense  of  main- 


32  Love^  3Iarria(/e,  and  Divorce. 

taiuing  a  police  office  at  all?  Indeed,  if  I  understaud  Mr.  J.  rightly,  after  imi:)os- 
ing  this  limitation  upon  the  absolute  freedom  of  divorce,  or,  in  other  words,  upon 
the  extinction  of  legal  marriage,  —  ex  gratia  modestice,  perhaps,  lest  the  whole  truth 
might  not  be  fitting  to  be  spoken  openly, — ;he  again  dispenses  with  the  limitation 
itself,  and  delivers  the  parental  relation  over  to  the  same  securities  to  which  he  has 
previously  consigned  the  conjugal;  for  I  find  in  a  subsequent  paragraph  of  the 
same  article  the  following  sentence:  "It  is  obvious  to  every  honest  mind  that,  if 
our  conjugal,  parental,  and  social  ties  (jeneralbj  can  be  safely  discharged  of  the 
purely  diabolic  element  of  outward  force,  they  must  instantly  become  transfigured 
by  their  own  inward  divine  and  irresistible  loveliness."  Here  it  is  not  marriage  only, 
but  the  maintenance  of  oil'spring  also,  which  is  to  be  intrusted  to  the  "inward 
sweetness  or  humanity"  of  the  individuals  to  whom  the  relation  appeals,  which 
seems  to  me  much  the  more  consistent  view  of  the  matter,  inasmuch  as,  if  the  prin- 
ciple is  good  for  anything  in  one  case,  it  is  certainly  equally  applicable  in  the 
other.  But  here,  again,  we  come  back  to  the  point  I  have  made  above,  — the  query 
whether  marriage,  discharged  of  all  law,  custom,  or  necessary  perpetuity,  remains 
marriage  at  all?  and  if  so,  what  is  the  essential  and  characteristic  element  of  such 
marriage?  —  upon  which  point  I  crave  further  information. 

3.  If  the  inception  and  the  dissolution  of  marriage  is  to  be  left  to  the  option  of 
the  parties  on  such  grounds  as  are  stated  by  Mr.  J.,  is  the  expansion  or  contraction 
of  the  relation  also  to  be  abandoned  to  the  altogether  private  and  individual  judg- 
ment of  the  same  parties  in  logical  deference  to  the  same  principle?  That  is  to 
say,  if  more  than  two  parties  are  taken  into  the  conjugal  partnership,  is  that  degree 
of  license  to  be  tolerated  likewise?  or  are  we  still  to  retain  a  police  office  to  pro- 
vide against  such  cases?  We  are  aware  that  men  have  differed  in  theory  and 
practice  in  divers  ages  and  nations,  —  between  monogamy  and  polygamy,  for 
example,  —  and  with  all  restraints,  both  of  custom  and  of  law,  removed,  possibly  they 
may  differ  in  like  manner  again.  What,  then,  is  to  happen  under  the  new  re'yime? 
Who  is  to  be  the  standard  of  proprieties  ?  Is  Mr.  James's  definition  of  a  "  disorderly 
life  "  to  be  my  definition  becaixse  it  is  his  ?  If  not  Mr.  James's  definition,  whose  then  ? 
What  is  the  limit  up  to  which  Man,  simply  in  virtue  of  being  Man,  is  entitled,  of  right,  to 
the  exercise  of  his  freedom,  without  the  interference  of  society,  or  —  iohich  is  the  same 
tjiing — of  other  individuals?  This  last,  it  seems  to  me,  is  about  the  most  weighty 
question  concerning  human  society  ever  asked,  and  one  which  a  man  who,  like  Mr. 
Jaines,  attempts  to  lead  the  way  in  the  solution  of  social  difiiculties,  should  be  pre- 
pared to  answer  by  some  broader  generalization  than  any  which  relates  to  a  single 
one  of  the  social  ties,  and  by  some  principle  more  susceptible  of  definition  than  a 
general  reference  to  humanitary  sentiment.  There  are  some  acts  which  the  indi- 
vidual is  authorized  to  do  or  not  to  do,  at  his  own  option,  and  in  relation  to  which 
other  individuals  have  no  right  to  interfere  to  determine  for  him  whether  he  shall 
or  shall  not  do  them;  as,  for  example,  whether  he  shall  go  p&rsonally  to  the  post 


Love^  Marriage.)  and  Divorce.  33 

office  or  send  a  boy.  There  are  certain  other  acts,  on  the  other  hand,  which  the 
individual  cannot  do  without  directly  authorizing  interference,  resistance,  or  con- 
straint, on  the  part  of  others.  If  a  man  plant  his  fist  in  the  features  of  another, 
or  tweak  his  nose,  I  take  that  to  be  sucli  an  act.  What,  now,  is  the  clear  and  de- 
finable line  which  social  science,  as  understood  by  Mr.  James,  reveals,  as  running 
between  these  two  classes  of  acts?  If  that  can  be  discovered,  perchance  it  may 
settle  the  marriage  question,  not  singly  and  alone,  but  along  with  every  other 
question  of  human  freedom.  Hoping  that  Mr.  J.  will  consent  to  enlighten  me 
and  others  by  any  knowledge  he  may  have  upon  the  subject,  I  submit  my 
interrogatories. 

Stephen  Pearl  Andrews. 


34  JjOVBt  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 


m. 

MR.  Greeley's  comments. 

Having  given  place  to  the  essays  on  Marriage  and  Divorce  by  Mr.  Henry  Jamea, 
in  reply  to  attacks  upon  him  in  the  "Observer,"  we  have  concluded  to  extend  like 
hospitality  to  the  queries  of  Mr.  S.  P.  Andrews,  suggested  by  and  relating  to  the 
essays  of  !Mr.  James.  Our  own  views  differ  very  radically  from  those  of  both  these 
gentlemen;  but  we  court  rather  than  decline  discussion  on  the  subject,  and  are 
satisfied  that  the  temper  and  tende  ncies  of  our  times  render  such  discussion  emi- 
nently desirable,  if  not  vitally  necessary.  Let  us  now  briefly  set  forth  our  own 
idea  of  the  matter. 

This  is  preeminently  an  age  of  Individualism  (it  would  hardly  be  polite  to  say 
Egotism),  wherein  "the  Sovereignty  of  the  Individual"  —  that  is,  the  right  of 
every  one  to  do  pretty  nearly  as  he  pleases^ is  already  generally  popular,  and 
visibly  gaining  ground  daily.  "  Why  should  not  A.  B.,  living  on  our  side  of  the 
St.  Lawrence,  and  making  hats,  exchange  them  freely  with  C.  D.,  living  on  the 
Canada  side,  and  growing  wheat,  without  paying  a  heavy  impost  or  violating  a 
law?"  —  "Why  should  not  E.  F.  lend  his  money  at  ten  or  twenty  per  cent,  to  G. 
II.,  if  the  latter  is  willing  to  pay  that  rate,  and  sees  how  he  can  make  more  by  it?  " 
—  "  Why  may  not  I.  J.  educate  his  own  children,  if  he  sees  fit,  and  decline  paying 
any  School  Tax?"  —  "And  why  should  not  John  Nokes  and  Lydia  Nokes  be  at 
liberty  to  dissolve  their  own  marriage,  if  they  have  no  children,  or  have  provided 
for  such  as  they  have,  and  believe  that  they  may  secure  happiness  in  new  relations 
which  is  unattainable  in  the  present?"  These  questions  all  belong  to  the  same 
school,  though  the  individuals  who  ask  them  may  be  of  superficially  different  creeds 
or  persuasions.  They  all  find  their  basis  and  aliment  in  that  idea  of  Individual 
Sovereignty  which  seems  to  us  destructive  alike  of  social  and  personal  well-being. 

The  general  answer  to  these  questions  imports  that  the  State  does  not  exist  for 
the  advantage  and  profit  of  this  or  that  individual,  but  to  secure  the  highest  good 
of  all,  —  not  merely  of  the  present,  but  of  future  generations  also ;  and  that  an  act 
which,  in  itself,  and  without  reference  to  its  influence  as  a  precedent,  might  be 


Love^  MarAarje^  and  Divorce.  35 

dt'eniprl  iiiiiocput,  is  often  rendered  exceedingly  hurtful  and  culpable  by  its  rela- 
tion to  other  acts  externally  undistinguishable  from  it.  A  hundred  cases  might  be 
cited  in  which  the  happiness  of  all  the  parties  immediately  concerned  would  be 
promoted  by  liberty  of  divorce;  and  yet  we  have  not  a  doubt  that  such  liberty,  if 
recognized  and  established,  would  lead  to  the  most  flagrant  disorders  and  the  most 
pervading  calamities.  "We  insist,  then,  that  the  question  shall  be  considered  from 
the  social  or  general  rather  than  the  individual  standpoint,  and  that  the  experience, 
the  judgment,  and  the  instincts  of  mankind  shall  be  regarded  in  framing  the 
decision. 

Polygamy  is  not  an  experiment  to  be  first  tried  in  our  day;  it  is  some  thousands 
of  years  old;  its  condemnation  is  inscribed  on  the  tablets  of  Oriental  history;  it  is 
manifest  in  the  comparative  debasement  of  Asia  and  Africa.  The  libi^rty  of  di- 
vorce has  been  recognized  by  great  historians  as  one  main  cause  of  the  corruption 
and  downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The  sentiment  of  chastity  becomes  ridiculous 
where  a  woman  is  transferred  from  husband  to  husband,  as  caprice  or  satiety  may 
dictate. 

Two  persons  desire  to  be  joined  in  Marriage,  and  invoke  the  sanction  of  the 
State  —  in  other  words,  the  approbation  and  respect  of  the  community  —  for  their 
union.  The  State  substantially  asks  them :  "  Is  there  no  impediment  to  such  union 
in  the  existing  engagements  of  one  or  both  of  you?  "  —  "  No."  —  "  Does  your  know- 
ledge of  and  affection  for  each  other  warrant  you  in  promising  to  love  and  cherish 
eacli  other  exclusively  as  husband  and  wife  till  death  siiall  part  you?"  —  "Yes."  — 
" Then  we  pronounce  and  consecrate  jou  man  and  wife,  and  enjoin  all  persons 
to  honor  you  as  such."  And  this  is  marriage,  "honorable  in  all,"  and  always 
honored  accordingly,  because  it  recognizes  and  provides  for  the  permanent  claims 
of  society  in  the  preservation  of  moral  purity  and  the  due  maintenance  and  educa- 
tion of  children;  while  any  sexual  union  unsanctified  by  the  mutual  pledge  of  per- 
petuity or  continuance  ever  has  been  and  ever  must  be  esteemed  ignoble  and 
dishonoring  when  contrasted  with  this;  for  its  aims  are  manifestly  selfish  and  its 
character  undistinguishable  from  the  purely  sensual  and  brutal  connections  of  un- 
disguised lewdness,  where  no  pretence  of  affection  or  esteem  is  set  up,  and  whose 
sole  object  is  animal  gratification.  In  other  words,  society,  by  the  institution  of 
indissoluble  marriage,  exacts  of  the  married  the  strongest  practical  guarantee  of 
the  purity  and  truth  of  their  affertioTi,  and  thereupon  draws  the  broadest  possible 
line  of  demarcation  between  them  and  the  vile  crew  whose  aspirations  are  purely 
selfish,  and  whose  unions  are  dissolved,  renewed,  and  varied  as  versatility  or  satiety 
may  dictate, 

^\'e  have  no  doubt  this  wise  law,  while  essential  to  the  progress  of  the  race  in  in- 
telligence and  virtue,  is  eminently  conducive  to  the  happiness  of  individuals.  True, 
there  are  unhappy  marriages,  discordant  marriages,  unions  sanctioned  by  law 
\shich  lack  the  soul  of  marriage,  —  but  these  occur,  not  through  any  inherent  vice 


36  Xove,  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

or  defect  in  the  institution,  but  through  the  levity,  rashness,  avarice,  or  over- 
mastering appetite  of  one  or  both  of  the  parties,  who  marry  in  haste,  or  from  the 
impulse  of  unworthy  motives,  when  the  law  counsels  deliberation  and  demands 
pm-e  affection.  If  a  general  proclamation  were  issued  to  morrow,  with  the  sanction 
of  all  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authorities,  authorizing  every  married  couple  to 
obtain  a  divorce  by  merely  applying  for  it  within  two  montlis,  and,  in  default  of 
such  asking,  to  remain  undivorced  ever  afterward,  we  do  not  believe  one  couple 
in  ten  would  apply  for  divorce.  But  let  it  be  understood  that  marriages  would 
hereafter  be  ganctioned  and  honored,  binding  the  parties  to  regard  each  other  as 
husband  and  wife  only  so  long  as  should  be  mutually  agreeable,  and  leaving  them 
at  perfect  liberty  to  dissolve  this  tie  and  for  m  new  ones  at  pleasure,  and  we  believe 
marriages  would  be  contracted  and  dissolved  with  a  facility  and  levity  now  unima- 
gined.  Every  innocent  young  maiden  would  be  sought  in  marriage  by  those  who 
now  plot  her  ruin  without  marriage,  and  the  facility  of  divorce  would  cover  the 
ajts  and  the  designs  of  the  libertine  with  all  the  panoply  of  honorable  and  pure  af- 
fection. How  many  have  already  fallen  victims  to  the  sophistry  that  the  ceremony 
of  marriage  is  of  no  importance,  —  the  affection  being  the  essential  matter?  How 
many  are  every  day  exposed  to  this  sophistry?  Marriage  indissoluble  may  be  an 
imperfect  test  of  honorable  and  pure  affection,  —  as  all  things  human  are  imper- 
fect,— but  it  is  the  best  the  State  can  devise;  and  its  overthrow  would  result  in  a 
general  profligacy  and  corruption  such  as  this  country  has  never  known  and  few 
of  our  people  can  adequately  imagine. 

We  are  inflexibly  opposed,  therefore,  to  any  extension  of  the  privileges  of  divorce 
now  accorded  by  our  laws ;  but  we  are  not  opposed  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject. 
On  the  contrary,  we  deem  such  discussion  vitally  necessary  and  already  too  long 
neglected.  The  free  trade  sophistry  respecting  marriage  is  already  on  every  lib- 
ertine's tongue;  it  has  overrun  the  whole  country  in  the  yellow-covered  literature 
which  is  as  abundant  as  the  frogs  of  Egypt  and  a  great  deal  more  pernicious.  It 
is  high  time  that  the  press,  the  pulpit,  and  every  other  avenue  to  the  public  mind,  ' 
were  alive  to  this  subject,  presenting,  reiterating,  and  enforcing  the  argument  in 
favor  of  the  sanctity,  integrity,  and  perpetuity  of  marriage. 


LovCy  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  87 


IV. 


EXTRACT  OF  REPLY  OF  MR.  JAMES  TO  THE  OBSERVKR. 

To  Mr.  Greeley: 

I  do  not  see  that  Mr.  Andrews's  queries  need  detain  ns.  The  numerous  fallacies 
and  misconceptions  on  which  they  are  grounded  either  suggest  their  own  correc- 
tion to  the  observant  reader  or  else  stand  fully  corrected  in  my  replies  to  the 
"Observer"  and  yourself.  Besides,  the  entire  "indifference*'  which  Mr.  Andrews 
professes  as  to  any  possible  issue  of  the  discussion  between  the  "Observer"  and 
myself  gives  a  decided  shade  of  impropriety  to  his  interference  in  it.  I  value  my 
time  and  thoughts  much  too  highly  to  bestow  them  upon  those  who  can  afford  to 
be  indifferent  to  them;  and,  accordingly,  I  shall  hold  myself  excused  if  I  confine 
my  attention  to  yourself  and  the  "  Observer." 


38  Xoue,  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 


V. 

MR.  GREELEY'S  COMMENTS. 

We  do,  indeed,  believe  that  most  parties  are  now  as  happy  and  contented  in  their 
marriage  relations  as  their  own  natures  will  allow;  because  we  believe  that  mar- 
riages are  now  contracted  with  a  very  general  understanding  that  they  are  prac- 
tically indissoluble;  that  nothing  short  of  death  or  the  deep  demoralization  and 
lasting  infamy  of  one  of  the  parties  can  ever  dissolve  them.  But  let  it  be  under- 
stood that  marriages -may  be  dissolved  whenever  the  parties  are  tired  of  each 
other,  —  and  we  can  conceive  no  essential  modification  of  our  pi'esent  system  which 
will  not  amount  practically  to  this,  —  and  we  believe  more  false  than  true  mar- 
riages would  be  contracted;  because  libertines  would  resort  to  marriage  as  a  cloak 
for  their  lecherous  designs,  which  the  legal  penalties  of  bigamy  and  adultei-y  now 
compel  them  to  pursue  by  a  more  circuitous  and  less  shaded  path.  Apprise  sen- 
sualists that  they  may  at  any  time  be  rid  of  the  obligations  of  marriage  by  simply 
dishonoring  them,  —  and  if  Mr.  James  does  not  intend  this,  we  cannot  understand 
him, — and  thousands  would  incur  those  obligations  with  deliberate  intent  to 
throw  them  off  whenever  they  should  be  found  irksome,  as,  with  their  appetites, 
they  are  morally  certain  soon  to  become.  We  insist,  then,  that  what  Mr.  James 
intends  or  contemplates  may  be  ever  so  innocent  and  practically  just  without  at  all 
discharging  his  proposition  of  the  responsibility  of  such  use  as  tlie  carnal  and  un- 
principled would  inevitably  make  of  it.  And  this  use  we  determine  by  the  ruin 
they  are  now  too  often  enabled  to  eifect  through  the  influence  of  the  sophism  that 
the  ceremony  of  marriage  is  of  no  account  where  the  essential  marriage  of  heart  and 
soul  has  already  taken  place.  We  determine  it  also  by  the  demoralization  and  de- 
generacy of  the  Romans,  especially  the  Patricians,  following  closely  on  the  heels  of 
the  liberty  of  divorce  accorded  by  their  laws  in  the  last  days  of  the  republic.  We 
find,  also,  that  the  most  flagrant  social  disorders  were  diflused  and  aggravated  in 
France  by  the  liberty  of  divorce  accorded  during  the  frenzy  of  the  first  Revolution. 
In  short,  we  believe  this  liberty  always  did  create  or  immensely  inflame  such  dis- 
orders wherever  it  has  been  legalized,  and  we  think  it  always  must  do  so;  at  least  un- 
til the  human  race  shall  have  been  very  differently  trained  and  developed  from  aught 
the  world  has  yet  seen.  If  there  ever  shall  come  a  time  when  the  whole  race  shall 
profoundly  realize  that  lewdness,  with  aU  transgression  of  the  laws  of  God,  is  a  ruin- 


Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  39 

ous  mistake,  destructive  of  the  happiness  of  the  transgressor,  there  will  then  be  no 
need  of  human  laws  or  penalties,  and  they  may  be  dispensed  with  altogether.  But 
so  long  as  there  shall  exist  a  social  necessity  for  interdicting  and  punishing  murder, 
—  which  we  reckon  will  be  rather  longer  than  either  Air.  James's  or  our  writings 
will  continue  to  lie  read,  —  so  long  we  believe  there  will  be  a  necessity  for  punish- 
ing seduction  and  adultery  and  forbidding  divorce. 

We  contend  that  Mr.  James's  liberty  of  divorce,  no  matter  what  Ma  mtent  may 
be,  or  what  hedges  he  might  seek  to  set  about  it,  would  practically  open  to  the  li- 
centious and  fickle  a  prospect  of  ridding  themselves  of  the  obligations  of  marriage 
at  pleasure,  —  would  say  to  them,  "Get  married,  if  that  will  su^jserve  the  ends  of 
today;  and  you  may  get  immarried  again  tomorrow,  or  as  soon  as  you  shall  think 
proper."  And  we  regard  Mr.  Andrews's  queries  aiid  well-understood  position  as 
most  significant  and  pertinent,  pointing,  as  they  do,  to  a  slill  larger  (or  looser) 
liberty  than  Mr.  James  contemplates.  Once  admit  divorce  on  Mr.  James's  basis, 
and  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  to  confine  it  within  his  limits. 

Our  own  conviction  and  argument  decidedly  fator  "indissoluble  marriage,"  any 
existing  law  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  But  for  the  express  words  of 
Christ,  which  seem  to  admit  adultery  as  a  valid  ground  of  divorce,  we  should  stand 
distinctly  on  the  Roman  Catholic  ground  of  no  divorce  except  by  death.  As  it  is, 
we  do  not  object  to  divorce  for  the  one  flagrant  and  gross  violation  of  the  marriage 
covenant,  though  we  should  oppose  even  that,  if  it  did  not  seem  to  be  upheld  by 
the  personal  authority  of  Christ.    Beyond  it  we  are  inflexible. 


40  Love,  Marriaae,  and  Divorce, 


VL 

NOTICE  BY  MR.  GREEl,EY. 

We  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Mrs.  E.  Oakes  Smith's  promised  exposition  of 
her  views  on  the  divorce  question,  which  we  shall  publish  soon.  But  we  have  had 
one  much  longer  on  hand  from  Mr.  S.  P.  An  drews,  which  we  shall  print  first, 
thout^h  we  consider  its  doctrines  eminently  detestable,  while  Mrs.  Smith's  conclu- 
sions are  just,  though  her  way  of  looking  at  the  question  dillers  somewhat  from 
ours. 

The  world  is  full  of  perilous  fallacies  and  sophisms  respecting  marriage  and 
divorce,  which,  we  are  confident,  are  mischievous  only  because  they  burrow  in  dark- 
ness and  are  permitted  to  do  their  deadly  work  unopposed.  Let  them  be  exposed 
to  the  light  of  discussion,  and  they  will,  they  7nust,  be  divested  of  their  baneful 
power.    We  hope  to  do  our  share  toward  this  consummation. 


Love,  MaiTiacjc^  and  Divorce.  41 


vn. 


MR.  ANDREWS'  REPLY  TO  MR.  JAMES  AND  MR.  GREELEY. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune: 

Mr.  Jaiuos  declines  answering  my  questions  on  the  ground  that  I  expressed 
indifference  to  the  issue  of  a  discussion  between  him  and  another  party.  I  did  not 
express  any  indifference  to  the  information  which  /  sought  from  him.  By  this 
expert  quibble  he  gracefully  waves  aside  queries  to  which  it  is  simply  impossible 
for  him' to  reply  without  committing  himself,  by  inevitable  sequence,  to  conclu- 
sions which  he  seems  either  not  to  have  the  willingness  or  the  courage  to  avow. 
It  would  be  cruel  to  insist  any  further.  So  let  Mr.  James  pass.  Before  doing  so, 
however,  since  he  charges  "fallacies  and  misconceptions"  upon  my  article,  and 
refers  me  obliquely  to  his  replies  to  the  "Observer,"  permit  me  to  recapitulate  the 
positions  at  which  he  has  tarried  temporarily  while  boxing  the  circle  of  possibilities 
in  that  discussion.     I  quote  from  Mr.  James's  various  articles  on  the  subject 

Position  No.  1.  "Marriage  means  nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than  the  legal 
union  of  one  man  and  one  woman  for  life."  "It  does  not  mean  the  voluntary 
union  of  the  parties,  or  their  mutual  consent  to  live  together  durante  placito" 
(during  pleasure),  "but  simply  a  legally  or  socially  imposed  obligation  to  live 
together  durante  vita"  (during  life). 

That  is  to  say,  if  I  understand,  that  it  is  "the  base  legal  bondage,"  or  "outward 
force,"  which  characterizes  the  union,  and  not  the  internal  or  spiritual  union  of 
loving  hearts  which  constitutes  the  marriage. 

Position  No.  2.  "It  is  evident  to  every  honest  mind  that,  if  our  conjugal,  paren- 
tal, and  social  ties  generally  can  be  safely  discharged  of  the  purely  diabolic  element 
of  outward  force,  they  nmst  instantly  become  transfigured  by  their  own  inward, 
divine,  and  irresistible  loveliness."  "No  doubt  there  is  a  very  cnornjous  clandes- 
tine violation  of  the  marriage  bond"  [legal  bond,  of  course,  as  he  has  defined  mar- 
riage] "at  the  present  time The  only  possible  chance  for  correcting  it 

depends  upon  fully  legitimating  divorce.  .  .  .  because,  in  that  case,  you  place  the 
inducement  to  mutual  fidelity  no  longer  in  the  base  legal  bondage  of  the  parties 
merely,  but  in  their  reciprocal  inward  sweetness  or  humanity."  "You  must  know 
many  married  partners  who,  if  the  marriage  institution"  [the  legal  bond]  "were 


42  ,       Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

formally  abolished  tomorrow,  would  instantly  annul  that  legal  abolition  again  by 
the  unswerving  constancy  of  their  hearts  and  lives."     That  is,  without  marriage. 

Position  No.  3.  "  I  have.  .  .  .  contended  for  greater  freedom  of  divorce  on  these 
grounds;  ....  but  I  had  no  idea  that  I  was  thus  weakening  the  respect  for  mar- 
riage. I  seemed  to  myself  to  be  plainly  strengthening  it,"  etc.  "It  seemed  to  me 
the  while  that  I  was  saying  as  good  a  word  for  marriage  as  was  ever  said  beneath 
the  stars." 

To  resume :  These  three  positions  are,  if  language  means  any  thing,  as  follows  : 

1.  The  whole  and  sole  substance  of  marriage  is  the  legal  bond  or  outward  force 
which  unites  the  parties  for  life. 

2.  This  legal  bond  or  outward  force  is  a  diabolical  element,  and  should  be 
wholly  abolished  and  dispensed  with. 

3.  By  dispensing  with  marriage  altogether  —  that  is,  with  all  outward  form  or 
legal  bond — you  do  thereby  strengthen  the  respect  for  marriage,  and  purify  and 
sanctify  the  institution  1 

Position  No.  4  goes  a  step  further,  if  possible,  in  absurdity,  and  proposes  not 
merely  to  allow  parties  to  unmarry  themselves  ad  libitum,  but  to  still  further  purify 
what  remains  of  marriage  (after  the  whole  of  it  is  abolished)  by  turning  disorderly 
members  out,  as  they  turn  members  out  of  church.     See  last  article,  passim. 

Position  No.  5  entreats  of  the  editor  of  the  "  Observer  "  to  let  him  off  from 
the  discussion — declines  to  answer  my  interrogatories  —  and,  to  make  a  verb  of 
one  of  his  pet  substantives,  he  cuttle-fishes,  by  a  final  plunge  into  metaphysical 
mysticism. 

When  a  writer,  claimmg  distinction  as  a  philosophical  essayist,  is  content  to  rest 
his  reputation  upon  a  collation  of  his  avowed  positions  such  as  the  above,  culled 
from  his  own  statements  made  during  the  course  of  a  single  discussion,  he  shall  not 
be  compelled  by  any  "shade  of  impropriety  "  on  my  part  to  undertake  the  distaste- 
ful task  of  disentangling  himself  from  the  perplexing  embroglio. 

Dismissing  Mr.  James,  permit  me  now  to  pay  some  attention  to  your  opinions. 
You,  at  least,  I  thmk,  have  the  pluck  to  stand  by  your  own  conclusions,  unless 
you  are  fairly  driven  off  from  them. 

You  affirm,  with  great  truth,  while  you  deplore  it,  that  this  is  preeminently  an 
age  of  "individualism,"  wherein  the  "sovereignty  of  the  individual"  —  that  is, 
"the  right  of  every  one  to  do  pretty  much  as  he  pleases"  —  is  already  generally 
popular  and  obviously  gaining  ground  daily.  Let  us,  then,  define  our  positions. 
If  I  mistake  in  assigning  you  yours,  you  are  quite  competent  to  correct  me.  You 
declare  yourself  a  reactionist  against  this  obvious  spirit  of  the  age.  Y''ou  take  your 
position  in  opposition  to  the  drift  —  I  think  you  will  find  it  the  irresistible  drift  — 
of  that  social  revolution  which  you  recognize  as  existing  and  progressing  toward 
individualism  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual.  Y'ou  rightly  refer  free  trade, 
freedom  of  the  finances,  freedom  from  State  systems  of  religion  and  education, 


Love^  Marriage,  and  Divorce.  43 

and  freedom  of  the  love  relations,  to  one  and  the  same  principle,  and  that 
principle  you  recognize  as  the  spirit  of  the  age,  —  the  spirit  of  this,  the  most 
progressive  and  advanced  age  in  the  world's  history.  To  this  element  of  progres- 
sion you  put  yourself  in  a  hostile  attitude.  You  rightly  say  that  all  these  varieties 
of  freedom  "find  their  basis  and  element  in  that  idea  of  'individual  sovereignty' 
which  seems  to  us  alike  destructive  of  social  and  personal  well-being."  I  rejoice 
that  you  so  clearly  perceive  the  breadth  and  comprehensiveness  of  that  principle, 
and  that  all  the  ruling  questions  of  the  day  are  merely  branches  of  one  and  the 
same  question,  —  namely,  whether  the  '-sovereignty  of  the  individual,"  or,  what  is 
the  same  thing,  the  individual  right  of  self-government,  be  a  true  or  a  false,  and 
consequently  whether  it  be  a  safe  or  a  dangerous  principle.  This  will  greatly  nar- 
row the  limits  of  tl>e  discussion;  besides,  it  is  much  pleasanter  to  reason  about 
general  principles  with  one  who  is  capable  of  grasping  them  than  to  be  carried 
over  an  ocean  of  particulars,  apparently  different,  but  really  belonging  to  the  same 
category. 

This  same  principle  of  individual  sovereignty,  which  to  you  seems  destructive 
alike  of  social  and  personal  well-being,  is  to  me  the  profoundest  and  most  valuable 
and  most  transcendcntly  important  principle  of  political  and  social  order  and  in- 
dividual well-being  ever  discovered  or  dreamed  of.  Xow,  then,  wo  differ.  Here, 
at  the  very  start,  is  an  illustration  of  individuality  or  diversity  of  opinion,  and, 
growing  out  of  that,  of  action  also.  We  are  both,  I  believe,  equally  honest  lovers 
of  the  well-being  of  our  fellow-men ;  but  we  honestly  differ,  from  diversity  of  or- 
ganization, intellectual  development,  past  experiences,  etc.  Who,  now,  is  the  legi- 
timate umpire  between  us?  I  afhrm  that  there  is  none  in  the  universe.  I  assert 
our  essential  peerage.  I  assert  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  between  indivi- 
duals precisely  as  you  do,  and  for  the  same  reasons  that  you  do,  between  nations, 
as  the  principle  of  peace  and  harmony  and  good-fellowship.  Upon  my  principle  I 
admit  your  complete  sovereignty  to  think  and  act  as  you  choose  or  miist.  I  claim 
my  owni  to  do  likewise.  I  claim  and  I  admit  the  right  to  differ.  This  is  simply 
the  whole  of  it.  Xo  collision,  no  intervention  can  occm-  between  us,  so  long  as 
both  act  on  the  principle,  and  only  to  prevent  intervention  when  either  attempts  to 
enforce  his  opinions  upon  the  other.  How  now  is  it  with  your  principle?  You  de- 
termine, you  being  judge,  that  my  opinions  are  inmioral,  or  that  the  action  grow- 
ing out  of  them  would  be  injurious  to  otheV  living  individuals,  or  even  to  remote 
posterity.  You,  as  their  self-constituted  guardian,  summon  to  your  aid  the  major- 
ity of  the  mob,  who  chance  to  think  more  nearly  with  you  than  with  me  for  the 
nonce;  you  erect  this  unreflecting  mass  of  half-developed  mind,  and  tlio  power 
thenco  resulting,  into  an  abstraction  which  you  call  ''The  State,"  and,  with  that 
power  at  your  back,  you  suppress  me  by  whatever  means  are  requisite  to  the  end, 
—  public  odium,  the  prison,  the  gibbet,  the  hemlock,  or  the  cross.  A  subsequent 
age  may  recognize  me  as  a  Socrates  or  a  Christ,  and,  while  they  denounce  your 


44  Love^  Marriaye^  and  Divorce. 

conduct  with  bitterness,  never  yet  discover  the  falsity  of  the  principle  upon  which 
you  hunestly  acted.  They  go  on  themselves  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  repeating 
the  same  method  upon  all  the  men  of  their  day  who  differ,  for  good  or  for  evil,  from 
the  opinions  of  that  same  venerable  mob,  called  "  The  State."  Or,  perchance,  the 
mob,  and  consequently  "The  State,"  may  be  on  my  side, — if  not  now,  by-and-by, 
—  and  then  I  suppress  you.  Which,  now,  of  these  two,  is  the  principle  of  order  in 
human  affairs?  That  1  should  judge  for  you,  and  you  for  me,  and  each  summon 
what  power  he  may  to  enforce  his  opinions  on  the  other ;  or  that  each  begin  by 
admitting  the  individual  sovereignty  of  the  other — to  be  exercised  by  each  at  his 
own  cost  —  with  no  limitation  short  of  actual  encroachment? 

With  what  force  and  beauty  and  truth  does  Mr.  James  assert  that  "freedom,  in 
any  sphere,  does  not  usually  beget  disorder.  He  who  is  the  ideal  of  freedom  is  al- 
so the  ideal  of  order."  lie  seems,  indeed,  wonderfully  endowed  by  the  half-light 
of  intuition  to  discover  the  profoundest  truths  and  to  clothe  them  in  delightful 
forms  of  expression.  It  is  lamentable  to  see  how,  when  he  applies  his  intellect 
to  deduce  their  conclusions,  they  flicker  out  into  obscurity  and  darkness.  You  see, 
on  the  contrary,  that  this  simple  statement  alone  involves  the  whole  doctrine  that 
I  have  ever  asserted  of  individual  sovereignty.  Hence  the  line  of  argument  as  be- 
tween you  and  me  is  direct,  while  with  him  it  leads  nowhere.  Your  positions  are 
intelligible;  so,  I  think,  are  mine;  Mr.  James's  are  such  as  we  find  them.  I  am  a 
democrat.  You,  though  not  a  despotist  consciously,  and  calling  yourself  a  pro- 
gressive, are  as  yet  merely  a  republican;  republicanism,  when  analyzed,  coming 
back  to  the  same  thing  as  despotism, — the  arbitrary  right  of  the  mob,  called  the 
State,  over  my  opinions  and  private  conduct,  instead  of  that  of  an  individual  des- 
pot. I  am  no  sham  democrat.  I  believe  in  no  government  of  majorities.  The 
right  of  self-government  means  with  me  the  right  of  every  individual  to  govern 
himself,  or  it  means  nothing.  Do  iK)t  be  surprised  if  I  define  terms  differently 
from  the  common  understanding.     I  shall  make  myself  understood  nevertheless. 

There  are  in  this  world  two  conflicting  principles  of  government.  Stripped  of 
all  verbiage  and  aU  illusion,  they  are  simply:  1,  that  man  is  not  capable  of  govern- 
ing himself,  and  hence  needs  some  other  man  (or  men)  to  govern  him;  2,  that  man 
is  capable  of  self-government,  potentially,  and  that,  if  he  be  not  so  actually,  he 
needs  more  experience  in  the  practice  of  it,  including  more  evil  consequences  from 
failure;  that  he  must  learn  it  for  himself,  as  he  learns  other  things;  that  he  is  en- 
titled of  right  to  his  own  self-government,  whether  good  or  bad  in  the  judgment 
of  others,  whenever  he  exercises  it  at  his  own  cost,  —  that  is,  without  encroacli- 
ment  upon  the  equal  right  of  others  to  govern  themselves.  This  last  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual,  which  you  denounce  and  oppose,  and  which  I 
defend.  It  is  simply  the  clear  understanding,  with  its  necessary  extension  and 
limitations,  of  the  affirmation  in  the  American  Declaration  of  Independence  that 
"all  men  are  entitled  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."     The  principle 


Love^  Marrkifje^  and  Divorce.  45 

of  Protestantism  is  tho  same  in  the  religious  sphere,  —  "the  right  of  private  jmlg- 
ment  in  matters  of  faitli  and  con.scionce."  Either  assertion  includes  virtually  and 
by  direct  consequence  tlie  wliole  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  indivi.lual,  or 
"the  right  of  men  to  do  pretty  much  as  tliey  please."  Tlie  right  or  wrong  of  this 
principle,  dimly  understood  lieretofore,  has  been  the  world's  quarrel  for  some  cen- 
turies. Clearly  and  distinctly  understood,  with  the  full  length  of  its  reach  before 
men's  eyes,  it  is  to  be  the  worhl's  quarrel  ever  hereafter,  until  it  is  fairly  and 
finally  settled.  All  men  arc  now  again  .summoned  to  take  sides  in  the  figlit,  witli 
the  new  light  shed  upon  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  quarrel,  by  the  development 
of  modern  ideas,  and  especially  by  Socialism,  which  you,  sir,  have  done  something 
to  foster.  Let  tho.se  who  wish  to  draw  back  do  so  now.  Hereafter  there  will  be 
less  and  less  pretext  of  misunderstanding  or  incautious  committal  to  tho  side  of 
freedom. 

Still,  you  are  not  upon  the  opposite  side  in  this  contest.  So  far  as  any  guiding 
principle  is  concerned,  it  seems  to  me  that  you,  in  common  with  the  great  mass  of 
progre.ssives,  or  half-way  reformers  in  the  world,  are  simply  without  any  —  which 
you  are  willing  to  trust.  The  conservatives  are  a  great  deal  better  off.  So  far  as 
you  adopt  a  principle  at  all,  it  is  generally  that  of  this  very  individual  sovereignty, 
which,  nevertheless,  you  fear  in  its  final  carrying  out;  and  hence  you  join  the  re- 
action whenever  the  principle  a.sserts  a  new  one  of  its  applications.  The  petty 
despot  and  tho  comfortable  hounjeois,  in  Kurope,  fear,  from  the  same  standpoint, 
in  the  same  manner,  just  as  honestly,  and  with  just  as  good  reason,  the  freedom  of 
the  press. 

A  liberty  which  anybody  else  in  the  universe  has  a  right  to  define  is  no  liberty 
for  me.  A  pursuit  of  happiness  which  some  despot,  or  some  oligarchy,  or  some 
tyrannical  majority,  has  the  power  to  shape  and  prescribe  for  me,  is  not  the  pursuit 
of  viy  happine.ss.  Statesmen,  politicians,  religious  dissenters,  and  reformers,  who 
have  hitherto  sanctioned  the  principle  of  freedom,  have  not  seen  its  full  reach  and 
expansion;  hence  they  become  reactionists,  conservatives,  and  "old  fogies,"  when 
the  whole  truth  is  revealed  to  them.  They  find  themselves  getting  more  than  they 
bargained  for.  Nevertheless,  the  principle,  which  already  imbues  the  popular  mind 
instinctively,  though  not  as  yet  intellectually,  will  not  wait  their  leave  for  its  de- 
velopment, nor  stop  at  their  bidding.  Ilenco  all  middle  men,  far  more  than  the 
conservatives,  are  destined  in  this  age  to  be  exceedingly  unhappy. 

A  mere  handful  of  individuals,  along  with  myself,  do  now,  for  the  first  time  in 
the  world,  accept  and  announce  the  sovereignty  of  tho  individual,  with  all  its  con- 
sequences, as  tho  principle  of  order  as  well  a.M  of  lil>erty  and  happine.-w  among  men, 
and  challenge  its  acceptanoo  by  mankind.  The  whole  world  is  drifting  to  our  po«i- 
tion  under  tho  influence  of  forces  too  powerful  to  bo  resisted,  and  wo  have  had 
merely  the  good  or  ill  fortune  to  arrive  intellectually  at  the  common  goal  in  ad- 
vance of  the  multitude.     It  gives  us  at  lea-st  this  happines.s,  that  we  look  witlj  ple»- 


46  Love.,  Marriage.,  and  Divorce. 

s\ire  and  a  sense  of  entire  security  upon  the  on-coming  of  a  revolution  wliicli  to 
others  is  an  object  of  terror  and  dismay.  In  our  view,  the  ultra-political  Demo- 
crat of  our  day  has  only  half  taken  his  lessons  in  the  rightful  expansion  of  human 
freedom.  He,  too,  is,  relatively  to  us,  an  "  old  fogy."  Nor  do  we  trust  the  safety 
of  the  final  absence  of  legislation  to  any  vague  notions  of  the  natural  goodness  of 
man.  We  are  fully  aware  that  no  sum  total  of  good  intentions,  allowing  them  to 
exist,  amounts  to  a  guarantee  of  right  action.  We  trust  only  to  the  rigid  principles 
of  science,  which  analyzes  the  causes  of  crime  and  neutralizes  the  motives  whicli 
now  induce  or  provoke  men  to  commit  it. 

You  speak  in  the  most  hopeless  manner  of  the  final  removal  of  murder  from  the 
face  of  the  earth.  Do  you  reflect  that  already  among  us  one-half  the  crimes  of  the 
Old  World,  or  of  other  countries,  are  entirely  unknown  as  crimes.  Such  are  Vese 
jnajesle  and  heresy,  (he  utterance  of  treason,  etc.  Thirty  hours'  ride  south  of  us,  the 
crime  which  actually  shocks  the  public  mind  more  than  any  other  is  nogro-stealing. 
Throughout  the  Southern  States  it  is  pretty  much  the  only  crime  that  is  rigorously 
punished.  Here  it  is  unknown,  even  by  name,  among  the  common  people.  What, 
now,  is  the  cause  of  this  wonderful  phenomenon,  —  that  one-half  of  the  known 
crimes  of  the  world  are  actually  gone  out  and  extinguished  in  this  the  freest  spot 
(observe  the  fact)  upon  the  face  of  the  earth?  It  is  simply  this, — that  the  artifi- 
cial institutions  against  which  these  crimes  are  but  the  natural  protest  of  oppressed 
and  rebellious  humanity  have  themselves  gone  out  —  not,  as  is  thoughtlessly  sup- 
posed, to  be  replaced  by  better  institutions,  but  by  the  absence  of  institutions  —  by 
the  natural  and  untrammeled  action  of  individuals  in  a  state  of  freedom.  There  is 
no  Ihe  majeste,  because  there  is  no  institution  of  majesty  to  be  insulted  or  offended  ; 
there  is  no  heresy,  because  there  is  no  instituted  or  established  church  ;  there  is  no 
verbal  treason,  because  there  is  so  little  of  government  that  it  seldom  provokes  re- 
sistance, and  can  afford  to  wait  till  the  resistance  becomes  overt ;  there  is  no  negro- 
stealing,  because  there  is  no  institution  of  slavery,  there  is  no  publication  of 
incendiary  documents  as  a  crime,  because  there  is  no  institution  so  conscious  of  its 
own  insecurity  as  to  construe  freedom  of  the  press  into  a  crime ;  there  will  be  no 
seduction,  and  no  bigamy,  and  no  adultery,  when  there  is  no  legal  or  forceful  in- 
stitution of  marriage  to  defend,  when  woman  is  recognized  as  belonging  to  herself 
and  not  to  a  husband,  when  she  is  expected  simply  to  be  true  to  herself  and  not  to 
any  man,  except  so  far  as  such  fidelity  results  from  fidelity  to  herself  as  the  prior 
condition,  ol£,  which  she  alone  of  all  human  beings  is  a  competent  judge;  and  when, 
by  the  principle  of  "commercial  equity,"  which,  thanks  to  the  same  science  of  so- 
ciety, is  now  known  in  the  world,  woman  shall  be  placed  upon  a  footing  of  entire 
pecuniary  independence  of  man  and  installed  in  the  actual  possession,  as  well  as 
admitted  to  the  right,  of  being  an  individual. 

There  is  already  far  less  murder  among  us  than  elsewhere  in  the  world,  because 
there  are  less  institutions  to  be  offended  against.     With  still  less  iustitutions  there 


Love^  Marriarje^  and  Divorce.  47 

will  be  still  less  murder,  and,  with  the  addition  of  equitable  relations  between  cap- 
ital and  labor,  there  will  bo  none.  Crime  is  just  as  much  a  matter  of  cultivation 
as  potatoes.  The  way  to  produce  it  and  the  way  to  prevent  it  is  a  matter  of  science, 
just  as  much  as  any  chemical  process.  Chemical  processes  go  on  and  fail  to  go  on 
in  nature  without  our  knowledge,  but  we  can  learn  them  and  hasten  or  prevent 
them.  Crime  springs  solely  from  two  causes.  1.  The  existence  of  arbitrary  in- 
stitutions, and  the  ignorant  and  false  ideas  in  men's  minds  growing  out  of  our  rela- 
tion to  those  institutions,  whereby  acts  are  construed  to  be  crimes,  which,  by  the 
institutes  of  natural  law,  are  no  crimes ;  and,  2.  The  denial  of  equity,  growing 
out  of  ignorance  of  the  scientific  principle  of  equity,  and  out  of  the  want  of  suffi- 
cient intelligence  and  expansion  of  the  intellect  to  enable  men  to  see  that  their  in- 
terests lie  in  adopting  and  acting  upon  that  principle,  nnIumi  known.  In  other 
words,  out  of  the  denial  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  in  all  things,  and  out 
of  a  false  or  unscientific  commercial  system. 

I  see  clearly,  and  even  sympathize  with,  while  I  do  not  partake  of,  the  fears  of 
the  conservative  and  half-way  progressive,  from  the  growth  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  individual.  Still  further,  I  recognize  that  evils  and  disorderly  conduct  grow 
out  of  its  growth,  when  unattended,  as  it  is  hitherto,  by  "equity"  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  burdens  and  benefits  of  life.  Ibit  I  see  just  as  clearly  that  the  n-iuedy 
for  those  evils  does  not  lie  in  the  direction  of  repression  or  forcible  constraint,  but 
in  the  acceptance  and  addition  of  an  entirely  new  principle  of  order;  not  in  going 
backward  to  a  system  wliich  has  been  tried,  and  disastrously  failed,  for  thousands 
of  years,  but  in  going  forward  to  the  discovery  and  application  of  a  new  and  etBca- 
cious  system. 

You  expressly  acknowledge,  you  can  not  but  acknowledge,  that  marriage  does 
not  work  well  for  all  tlu;  parties  concerned, — only  for  some  of  them;  and  the  first 
must  be  content  to  sacrifice  their  life-long  happiness  and  well-being  for  the  good  of 
the  others.  No  such  system  will  ever  content  the  world,  nor  ever  should.  It  does 
not  meet  the  wants  of  man.  Your  line  of  reasoning  is  after  the  old  sort,  —  that 
the  State  exists  not  for  the  good  of  this  or  that  individual,  but  for  the  gooil  of  all, 
when  you  begin  by  admitting  that  the  good  of  all  is  not  secured.  You  are,  of 
course,  aware  that  this  is  the  argument  of  every  despot  and  despotism  in  the  world, 
under  which  the  liberties  of  mankind  have  always  been  stolen.  The  argument  is 
the  same,  and  just  as  good,  in  the  mouth  of  Louis  Xapoleon  as  it  is  in  yours.  It  is 
just  as  good  as  a  reason  for  depriving  mo  of  the  freedom  of  the  press,  as  it  is  when 
urged  as  a  reason  for  depriving  me  of  freedom  in  the  most  sacretl  afTections  of  the 
heart.  The  most  stupendous  mi.'jtake  that  this  world  of  ours  has  ever  nuule  is  that 
of  erecting  an  abstraction,  the  State,  the  Church,  Public  Morality  according  to  some 
accepted  standard,  or  some  other  ideal  thing,  into  a  realjx»rsonality,  and  making  it 
paramount  to  the  will  and  happiness  of  the  individual. 

So  much  for  principles.     Now,  then,  there  is  another  thing  in  the  workl  which 


48  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

is  called  expediency,  •which  is  just  as  right  and  just  as  good  a  thing,  in  its  place,  as 
principle.  Principle  indicates  the  true  and  right  toward  which  we  are  to  aim,  and 
whicli  we  are  finally  to  attain ;  expediency,  what  we  are  to  do  provisionally,  or  as 
the  nest  best  thing,  in  the  midst  of  the  wrong  by  which  we  are  surrounded,  while 
working  to  vindicate  principle,  or  to  secure  the  final  right.  If  your  tariff  doctrines, 
for  example,  and  other  repressive  measures,  were  put  fairly  on  the  basis  of  expe- 
diency, or  present  exigency,  and  admitted  to  be  wrong  in  principle,  evils  them- 
selves, to  be  zealously  overthrow-n  as  soon  as  practicable,  I  might  go  a  great  way 
along  with  yoii.  Extremes  meet.  Ultra  and  intelligent  radicalism  has  many 
points  of  relationship  to  rigid  conservatism.  Its  surface  action  is  often  just  the 
reverse  of  its  deeper  and  more  persistent  movement.  You  certainly  do  not  mean 
to  assert  that  free  trade  is  a  wrong  thing  in  itself;  that  it  is  a  breach  of  one  of 
nature's  laws,  a  thing  to  be  feared  and  defended  against,  if  the  whole  world  were 
dealing  fairly  and  honestly  in  the  reward  of  labor  and  in  their  interchanges  with 
each  other.  You  mean  that,  because  the  European  capitalist  deals  with  his  laborer 
upon  such  terms  as  render  him  a  pauper,  American  laborers  are  compelled,  by 
tlieir  wrong,  to  resort  to  another  wrong,  and  refuse  to  buy  those  starvation  pro- 
ducts, in  order  to  protect  their  own  labor  from  the  same  depression  through  the 
medium  of  competition.  They  are  compelled  by  the  wrong  of  others  to  deprive 
themselves  of  one  right,  as  an  expediency,  to  secure  themselves  in  the  possession  of 
another  right.  Hence  you  are  found  defending  a  tariff  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
the  most  speedy  avenue  to  free  trade  with  safety,  —  free  trade  and  safety  being 
both  goods  to  be  sought  after  and  attained. 

So,  again,  you  do  not  and  can  not  mean  that  the  time  is  never  to  come  when 
woman  shall  possess  the  freedom  to  bestow  herself  according  to  the  dictates  of  her 
own  affections,  wholly  apart  from  the  mercenary  considerations  of  shelter,  and  food, 
and  raiment,  and  to  choose  freely  at  all  times  the  father  of  her  own  child.  You 
do  not,  of  course,  mean  that  the  free  play  and  full  development  and  varied  experi- 
ence of  the  affections  is  intrinsically  a  bad  thing,  any  more  than  the  development 
of  the  bodily  strength  or  of  the  intellect ;  but  only  that  it  is  bad  relatively  to  the 
present  depressed  and  dependent  condition  of  the  woman ;  just  as  intellectual 
development  is  a  misfortune  to  the  slave,  only  tending  to  render  him  unhappy 
until  the  final  period  approaches  for  his  emancipation.  You  certainly  do  not  be- 
lieve that  human  society,  in  the  highest  state  of  well-being  it  is  destined  to  attain, 
is  ever  to  be  attended  by  an  army  of  martyrs,  who  must  sacrifice  their  own  highest 
happiness  and  "the  highest  happiness  of  all  the  parties  immediately  concerned" 
to  the  security  and  well-being  of  somebody  else  remotely  interested. 

Do  you,  or  do  you  not,  then,  advocate  restrictions  upon  the  exercise  of  the  aSeo- 
tions  as  you  do  the  tariff,  —  merely  as  a  means  of  arriving  the  more  speedily  at 
complete  "free  trade"? 

Dismiss,  I  entreat  you,  all  your  fears  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual.    Cher- 


l/ove,  3farriaffe^  and  l}ivorce.  49 

isli  it  ratlier  as  the  glorious  realization  of  the  golden  age  of  the  future.  Instead  of 
whitewashing  repression  and  reaction  and  niartjrdoni,  and  holding  them  up  as 
things  to  admire  and  love  and  fight  for,  resort  to  them,  if  you  must,  as  the  unlovely 
expedients  of  the  bad  ages  that  are  past  or  passing  away.  Fight  for  and  defend, 
if  you  so  judge  right,  as  present  necessities  of  the  times,  the  censorship  of  the  press, 
the  police  organization  of  domestic  spies  upon  word  and  act,  the  passport  system, 
tariffs,  prohibition  of  divorce,  laws  regulating  the  affections  of  men  and  women, 
Maine  liquor  laws,  and  the  whole  system  of  arbitrary  constraint  upon  individual 
freedom ;  but  cherish  in  your  heart,  nay,  proclaim  openly,  as  the  ideal,  not  of  a 
remote,  imcertain,  and  fanciful  utopia,  but  of  the  imminent,  of  the  actually  dawn- 
ing future,  freedom  of  the  press,  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  locomotion,  free 
trade,  freedom  of  intellectual  inquiry,  and  freedom  of  the  affections.  Defend  your 
restrictions  upon  the  only  ground  upon  which  they  are  tolerable,  —  namely,  that  a 
temporary  enforced  order  is  only  the  more  direct  road  to  the  more  i>erfect  order  of 
complete  freedom.  Pursue  that  road,  or  any  road  which  in  your  judgment  will 
bring  you  fastest  and  farthest  toward  universal  freedom,  or  the  sovereignty  of  the 
individual,  —  not  rashly  but  surely,  not  inexpediently  but  expediently,  not  danger- 
ously but  safely  and  wisely  and  well.  It  is  this  freedom  which  the  whole  world 
aspires  after.  It  is  the  dream  of  universal  humanity,  whether  men  or  women.  It 
is  the  goal  of  all  reformation,"  and  the  most  sublime  and  the  most  beautiful  hope  of 
the  world. 

You  refer  to  my  position  on  the  marriage  question  as  well  understood.  Unfor- 
tunately it  is  not  so,  and  can  not  be  so,  if  that  question  is  considered  by  itself.  I 
liave  no  special  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  marriage.  I  regard  marriage  as  being 
neither  better  nor  worse  than  all  other  of  the  arbitrary  and  artificial  institutions  of 
society,  —  contrivances  to  regulate  nature  instead  of  studying  her  laws.  I  ask  for 
the  complete  emancipation  and  self-ownership  of  woman,  simply  as  I  ask  the  same 
for  man.  The  "woman's  rights  women"  simply  mean  this,  or  do  not  yet  know 
what  they  mean.  So  of  Mr.  James.  So  of  all  reformers.  The  "Observer"  is  log- 
ical, shrewd,  and  correct  when  it  affirms  that  the  whole  body  of  reformers  tend  the 
same  way  and  bring  up  sooner  or  later  against  the  legal  or  prevalent  theological 
idea  of  marriage.  It  is  not,  however,  from  any  special  hostility  to  that  institution, 
but  from  a  growing  consciousness  of  an  underlying  principle,  the  inspiring  soul  t)f 
the  activities  of  the  present  age,  —  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual.  The  lesson 
has  to  be  learned  that  order,  combining  with  freedom  and  ultiniating  in  harmony, 
is  to  be  the  work  of  science,  and  not  of  arbitrary  legislation  and  criminal  codes. 
Let  the  day  como  I 

Stephen  Pearl  A>fDREW8. 


50  Love^  MuiTiaye^  and  Divorce. 


vm. 

MB.  Greeley's  reply  to  the  foregoing. 

Mr.  S.  P.  Andrews: 

Let  me  begiu  by  setting  you  right  respecting  my  position  on  a  point  where  you 
expressly  invite,  if  not  challenge,  correction.  I  never  indicated  "freedom  from 
State  systems  of  religion"  as  one  of  the  impulses  of  our  time  against  which  I  take 
my  stand.  I  think  you  never  understood  me  to  do  so.  Nor  do  I  regard  the  strong 
tendency  of  our  time  to  wild,  ultra  individualism  as  an  element  of  any  progress 
but  that  made  by  Eve  at  the  serpent's  suggestion,  Sodom  just  previous  to  Lot's 
escape  from  it,  Rome  just  before  its  liberties  were  destroyed  by  Caesar,  and  others 
in  like  circumstances.  Admit  the  legitimacy  of  egotism,  or  the  selfish  pursuit  of 
happiness  by  each  individual,  and  a  government  of  despotism  seems  to  me  a  logical 
and  practical  necessity.  Had  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  American  liberty  cherished 
your  ideas  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual,  I  have  no  shadow  of  doubt  that 
their  children  would,  long  ere  this,  have  passed  under  the  yoke  of  a  despotism  as 
rigorous  as  that  of  Nicholas  or  Louis  Napoleon.  They  founded  liberty  because 
they  taught  and  practised  self-denial, — the  subordination  of  the  individual  will 
and  pleasure  to  the  will  of  God  (or,  if  you  please,  the  common  weal), — and  thus 
only,  in  my  judgment,  can  liberty  ever  be  founded  and  perpetuated. 

You  totally  mistake  in  attributing  to  me  the  assertion  of  the  principle  of  non- 
intervention between  nations  as  the  principle  of  peace  and  harmony.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  deplore  the  absence  of  competent  tribunals  to  adjudicate  questions  of 
international  difference,  and  believe  all  peaceful,  just  nations  should  promptly 
combine  to  establish  such  tribunals.  Had  such  existed  in  1846,  we  must  have 
been  spared  the  waste  and  the  butchery,  the  guilt  and  the  shame,  of  our  bloody 
foray  on  Mexico.  How  readily  all  the  intrigues  and  agitations  of  our  day  respect- 
ing Cuba  would  be  settled  by  a  just  international  supreme  court!  So  far  from  re- 
joicing or  acquiescing  in  its  absence,  I  deplore  that  circumstance  as  the  great 
scandal  and  calamity  of  Christendom. 

The  State  is  to  me  something  other  and  more  than  a  mob,  because  I  believe  that, 
since  justice  is  all  men's  true  and  permanent  interest,  the  heat  of  passion  or  the 
lust  of  gain,  which  too  often  blind  men  to  the  iniquity  of  their  own  personal  acts, 
are  far  less  potent  in  their  influence  on  those  same  men's  judgment  of  the  acts  of 


Lcyce^  Marrlarjr^  and  Divorce.  61 

others.  I  believe,  for  instance,  there  are  two  men  in  the  State  of  New  York  wlio 
are  personally  licentious  for  every  one  who  would  gladly  see  libertinism  shielded 
and  favored  by  law.  Men  who  roll  vice  as  a  sweet  morsel  under  their  tongues  are 
yet  desirous  that  virtue  shall  be  generally  prevalent,  and  that  their  own  children 
shall  be  trained  to  love  and  practise  it.  I  do,  therefore,  apj^eal  to  "the  State,"  or 
the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  community,  to  arbitrate  between  us,  believing  that 
the  State  properly  exists  as  a  "terror  to  evil-doers  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do 
well,"  and  that  it  not  only  does,  but  should,  judge  and  deal  with  offenders  against 
sexual  purity  and  the  public  well-being.  I  think  it  ought  to  "supi)ri'ss,"  not  the 
expression  of  your  opinions,  but  such  action  as  they  tend  to  clothe  with  impunity; 
and  so  far  from  deprecating  their  contingent  suppression  of  me,  should  ever  your 
principles  gain  the  ascendancy,  I  prefer  to  be  suppressed,  for  I  would  not  choose 
longer  to  live. 

As  to  the  harmonizing  of  freedom  with  order,  I,  too,  desire  and  anticipate  it, 
but  not  through  the  removal  of  all  restraints  on  vicious  appetite.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  expect  and  labor  for  its  realization  through  the  diffusion  of  light  and  truth 
with  regard  to  our  own  natures,  organizations,  purposes,  and  that  divine  law  which 
overrules  and  irradiates  them  all.  In  other  words,  I  look  for  the  harmonizing  of 
desire  with  duty,  not  through  the  blotting  out  of  the  latter,  but  through  the  chas- 
tening, renovating,  and  purifying  of  the  former. 

As  to  the  right  of  self-government,  there  is  no  such  radical  difference  between 
us  as  you  assert.  You,  as  well  as  I,  find  a  large  class  of  men  who  are  not  capable 
of  self-government;  for  you  acquiesce  in  the  imposition  of  restraint  upon  the 
lunatic,  thief,  burglar,  counterfeiter,  forger,  maimer,  and  murderer.  Where  is 
their  "inalienable  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"?  Ah!  you 
say,  "These  men  are  depredators  on  the  ecjual  rigiits  of  others."  "Very  well,"  I 
reply,  "so  are  the  seducer,  adulterer,  gambler,  and  dispenser  of  alcoholic  beve- 
rages." Who  would  not  rather  have  his  property  wrested  from  him  by  robbery 
than  his  children  enticed  into  dens  of  infamy  and  there  debauched  and  corrupted? 
Where  is  the  man  who  does  not  feel  and  know  that  the  seducer  of  his  innocent 
daughter — perhaps  a  mere  child  of  fifteen  —  is  a  blacker  villain,  and  more  deserv- 
ing of  punishment  (no  matter  fur  what  end  you  apply  it),  than  any  street 
rowdy  or  thief?  When  you  invoke  "the  sovereignty  of  the  individual"  to  shield 
that  villain  from  the  law's  terrors,  you  do  what  no  uncorrupted  conscience  can 
calmly  justify. 

As  you  seem  unable  to  discern  the  principles  which  underlie  my  position  on  this 
subject,  let  me  liriefly  state  them.  1.  Man  has  no  moral  right  to  do  wrong.  2. 
The  State  ought  to  forbid  and  repress  all  acts  which  tend,  in  their  natural  conse- 
quences, or  through  the  principles  they  involve,  to  corrupt  the  morals  of  the  com- 
munity, and  so  increase  the  sum  of  human  degradation  and  wretchedness.  8.  It 
is  wiser,  humaner,  every  way  preferable,  that  crimes  should  he  prei'etUed  than  tliat 


52  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

they  should  be  punished.  4.  The  great  mass  of  criminals  and  public  pests  among 
us  began  their  downward  courses  by  gambling,  tippling,  or  lewdness;  and  those 
are  almost  uniformly  the  initial  stejis  to  a  career  of  outlawry,  depravity,  and  fla- 
grant crime.  5.  Sexual  love  was  iini>laiited  in  man  by  his  creator  expressly  that 
the  race  should  be  perpetuated,  —  not  merely  brought  into  existence,  but  properly 
nurtured,  protected,  guided,  an«l  educated.  All  sexual  relations  that  do  not  con- 
template and  conform  to  these  ends  are  sinful  and  at  war  with  the  highest  good  of 
humanity.  6.  The  commandment  from  Sinai,  "  Tlioii  shalt  not  comniit  adultery," 
is  a  part  of  the  natural  or  moral  law,  contemi)lating  and  forbidding  every  form  of 
sexual  relation  except  the  union  for  life  of  one  man  with  one  woman,  in  obedieinr 
to  the  divine  end  above  indicated.  7.  Hence  (not  because  of  the  law  given  by 
Moses,  but  in  accordance  with  the  same  perception  of  moral  fitness  or  necessity) 
the  State  honors  and  Vilesses  marriage  (which  is  such  union  and  none  other),  and 
frowns  npon  all  other  sexual  relations. 

It  is  nonsense,  Mr.  Andrews,  to  talk  of  your  notion  of  individual  sovereignty  as 
a  new  discovery,  and  of  our  antagonist  views  as  moss-grown.  From  the  remotest 
heathen  antiquity  nearly  every  savage  or  barbarous  people  has  acted  far  nearer  to 
your  principles  than  to  ours.  Polygamy,  divorce  at  pleasure,  and  still  wider  licen- 
tiousness are  all  nearly  as  old  as  sin,  and  have  very  generally  gone  unwhipped  of 
human  justice.  It  is  our  doctrine  —  that  crime  should  be  dealt  with  in  the  egg, 
and  not  suffer  the  vulture  to  attain  his  full  growth ;  that  it  is  better  to  prevent 
than  punish  —  that  is  relatively  novel,  with  its  Maine  laws,  anti-gambling  laws, 
penalties  for  seduction,  etc.  The  tendency,  so  obvious  in  our  day,  to  revolt  against 
all  legal  impediments  to  the  amplest  sensual  indulgence  is  a  reaction  against  this, 
which  is  destined  to  give  us  trouble  for  a  time,  but  1  have  no  fear  that  it  will  ul- 
timately prevail. 

You  deem  me  hopeless  of  the  eradication  of  murder,  and  argue  that,  as  we  in 
New  York  have  now  no  such  offences  as  Ihe  rnajcste,  heresj',  spoken  treason,  negro- 
stealing,  etc.,  so  we  may  (thus  runs  your  logic)  get  rid  of  murder  in  like  manner 
by  no  longer  visiting  it  with  a  penalty  or  regarding  it  as  a  crime.  I  am  not  sure 
of  the  efficacy  of  this  remedy.  I  have  read  with  some  care  I)e  Quincey's  "Papers 
on  murder  considered  as  one  of  the  fine  arts,"  and,  while  I  have  certainly  l)eeii 
enlightencil  by  them  as  to  the  more  poetical  aspects  of  human  butchery,  I  do  not 
feel  that  my  personal  objections  to  being  knocked  down  with  a  slung-shot  or  pav- 
ing-stone, dragged  up  some  blind  alley,  and  there  finished,  have  been  materially 
softened  by  his  magnificent  rhetoric.  I  still  think  murderers  imsafe  persons  to  go 
at  large, — and  so  of  .seducers  and  adulterers.  I  think  tiiey  would  do  the  common- 
wealth more  good  and  less  harm  engaged  at  Sing-Sing  than  abroad  in  New  York. 

You  tell  me,  indeed,  that  "there  will  be  no  seduction,  no  bigamy,  and  no  adul- 
tery when  there  is  no  lerfnl  and  forceful  institution  of  marriage  to  defend."  I 
think  I  understand  you.     You  mean  that,  if  the  legal  inhibitions  and  penalties 


Lovc^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  53 

now  levelleJ  at  tlio  acts  thus  desij^natftl  be  abolished,  they  will  no  longer  be  f  ••■   • 
iu  the  catalogue  of  ofTences;   but  you  do  not  mean,  as  your  whole  eiwiay  « 
shows,  that  no  such  acts  as  are  now  known  V)y  those  names  will  l)e  < 
On  the  contrary,  you  glory  in  the  belief  that  they  will  l»e  far  more  abu: 
they  now  are.      In  other  words,  you  l>elieve  that  the  acts  known  to  our  law   . 
duction,  bigamy,  and  adultery  ouijht  to  be  committed  and  ought  not  to  bo  repn        .. 
—  that  they  outrage  no  law  of  nature  or  morality,  but  only  wrtain  arbitrarj'  and 
i;^norant  Imman  interdicts. 

I  hold  exactly  the  contrary,  —  that  these  are  acts  which  God  and  all  t'OfHl  mfu 
must  reprobate,  though  the  law  of  the  land  had  never  named  them.  I 
systematic  seducer  to  l)e  the  vilest  wolf  ever  let  lofjso  to  prey  on  inn<. 
purity,  and  one  who  oilends  far  more  flagrantly  against  the  natural  or  divine  law 
tlian  any  thief  or  burglar.  So  of  the  bigamist,  whose  crime  is  generally  per- 
petrated through  the  most  atrocious  deceit  and  perfidy.  So  of  the  adult<'rer — I 
take  up  a  paper  now  before  me,  and  read  in  a  riiiladelphia  letter  as  follows: 

Cclestin  William,  a  PolLsh  Catholic  priest,  elopo<l  from  tbla  city  some  days  Binro  with  » 
married  woiuau.     It  is  believed  tliry  liavo  Roiie  \Vest. 

Ileary  Schriver  eloped  from  this  city  last  week  wltli  tlie  wife  of  a  noi^hlwr,  leaving  behind 
a  wife  and  several  children. 

Here  are  four  jiersons,  all  of  whom  have  delilM-rately  broken  tl 
vows  heaven  was  ever  invoked  to  witness,  three  of  whom  have  li 
trayed  those  to  whom  they  had  sworn  fidelity  in  the  most  important  and  intimate 
relation  of  life,  one,  at  least,  of  whom  lias  deserted  the  children  he  was  bound  by 
every  tie  of  nature  and  duty  to  supinirt  and  educate  in  the  ways  of  wisdom  and 
virtue,  yet  all  throwing  themselves  on  their  individual  sov<'reiv,Mity  and  ; 
on  every  dictate  of  duty  in  subserviency  to  their  own  selfish  lu>;ts ;  jukI  w 
your  doctrine  do  with  them?     Nothing,  but  save  them  the  exjxMiso  ot  run;.;:. 
away.     They  might  have  taken  respectively  the  next  house  to  that  they  desert-  J, 
and  there  flaunted  their  infidelity  and  lechery  in  the  eyes  of  the  partneni  they  had 
p«»rfidiously  deserted,  the  children  they  had  abandoned.     I  cannot  think  th;-  ;■. 
improvement.     On  the  contrary,  so  long  as  men  and  women  «-i7/  be  thus  unj  . . 
pled  and  lecherous,  I  am  glad  that  the  law  imj>oses  on  them,  at  least,  the  tribute 
to  public  <lecency  of  running  away. 

And  this  reminds  me  of  the  kindred  case  of  two  persons  in  Nantucket  who  haro 
advertised  in  the  newspujH'rs  that  they  liavo  forme<l  a  matrimonial  connection  for 
life,  or  a.i  long  <u  the;/  can  agree ;  adiling  thiM.  they  consider  this  {Mirtnership  exclu- 
sively thi'ir  own  affair,  in  which  nol>ody  else  has  any  concern.  I 
have  the  grace  not  to  make  the  State  a  party  tti  any  such  arran 
I'ut  true  marriage  —  (he  union  of  one  man  with  one  wonnin  for  lile,  in  holy  oImv 
dienco  to  the  law  and  pur|K>se  of  (iod,  and  for  the  rearing  upof  pure,  virluou»,nnd 
modest  sons  nttd  daughtcro  to  the  State  —  is  a  union  so  radically  dilfereut  from 


54  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

this  that  I  trust  tliG  Nantucket  couple  will  not  claim,  or  that,  at  all  events,  their 
ueighbora  will  not  concede  to  their  selfish,  shameful  alliance,  the  honorable  appel- 
lation of  marriage.     Let  us,  at  least,  "hold  fast  tlie  form  of  sound  words." 

I  do  not  care  to  follow  you  over  a  wide  area  which  has  no  necessary  connection 
with  our  theme.  Sutlice  it  that  I  regard  free  trade  as  neither  riglit  nor  wrong,  good 
nor  bad,  in  itself,  but  only  in  view  of  its  practical  issues.  It  is  always  bad  when  it 
tends  to  throw  workers  out  of  employment  or  diminish  the  scanty  rewards  of  la- 
bor. When  the  .social  and  industrial  condition  of  the  various  peoples  shall  have 
been  so  equalized  that  there  will  be  no  temptation  to  undersell  and  supplant  the 
industry  of  one  nation  with  the  cheaper  products  of  another,  then  absolute  free 
trade  may  work  well;  but  the  mere  equalization  of  wages  is  but  one  among  several 
conditions  precedent  to  healthful  freedom  from  iniposts.  The  cotton  manufactures 
of  India  were  ruined,  and  the  manufacturers  starved,  by  the  far  letter  paid  labor  of 
England,  aided  by  vastly  superior  machinery.  A  wise,  paternal  Indian  govern- 
ment would  have  prohibited  the  British  cottons  until  the  British  machinery  could 
have  been  somehow  secured  and  set  suJliciently  to  work.  Thus  efficient  protection 
would  have  opened  the  .speediest  way  to  beneficent  free  trade;  and  so  in  other 
cases.  But  understand  me  to  believe  and  hold  that  what  you  commend  as  "the 
free  play  and  full  development  and  varied  experience  of  the  affections!!"  is  not 
and  never  can  be  a  good  thing,  but  will  remain  to  the  end  of  the  world  a  most  re- 
volting and  diabolic  perversion  of  powers  divinely  given  us,  for  beneficent  and 
lofty  ends,  to  the  base  uses  of  selfish  and  sensual  appetite,  —  to  uses  whereof  the 
consistent  development  and  logical  expression  are  exhibited  in  the  harlot  and  the 
b'hoy. 

It  is  very  clear,  then,  Mr.  Andrews,  that  your  path  and  mine  will  never  meet. 
Your  socialism  seems  to  be  synonymous  with  egotism;  mine,  on  the  contrary,  con- 
templates and  requires  the  subjection  of  individual  desire  and  gratification  to  the 
highest  good  of  the  community,  of  the  personal  to  the  universal,  the  temporary  to 
the  everlasting.  I  utterly  abhor  what  you  term  "the  right  of  woman  to  choose 
the  father  of  her  own  child,"  —  meaning  her  right  to  choose  a  dozen  fathers  for  so 
many  different  children,  —  seeing  that  it  conflicts  directly  and  fatally  with  the 
])aramount  right  of  each  child,  through  minority,  to  protection,  guardianship,  and 
intimate  daily  counsel  and  training  from  both  parents.*     Your  sovereignty  of  the 

•  In  ro-rcading  niy  reply,  which  follows,  I  perceive  tlwt  I  have  made  no  specific  answer  to  this  posi- 
tion. I  have  only  »p;ico  now  to  say  that,  if,  ujion  principle,  "the  State"  can  rightly  interfere  with 
parents  to  prevent  them  from  making  their  own  arrangements  for  rearing  tlieir  offspring  — namely,  to 
carry  on  their  education  jointly,  usslgii  it  to  one  of  the  partners,  or  to  a  third  i)er8on — In  order  "to 
secure  to  each  child,  through  minority,  the  protection,  gnardianship,  and  intimate  daily  counsel  and 
tr.iining  of  both  parents"  ;  that,  if  the  .State  can  rightly  interfere,  and  onpht  to  interfere,  to  prevent 
the  H«>|ianition  of  parents  on  such  grounds  at  all,  — the:;  ic  can  al^o  and  ought  to  pafs  lawtt  to  prevent 
fathers,  during  tho  minority  of  a  child,  from  going  to  sea,  or  to  a  foreign  country,  as  his  business  in- 
terests may  dictate,  and  generally  from  being  absent  more  than  twenty-four  hours,  or  being  caught 


Love,  Jfarriaye,  and  Divorce.  00 

individual  is  in  palpable  collision  with  the  purity  of  society  and  tlie  sovereignty 
of  God.*  It  renders  the  family  a  smoke-wreath  which  the  next  puff  of  air  may 
dissipate,  —  a  scries  of  "dissolving  views,"  wherein  "Honor  thy  father"  would  be 
a  command  impossible  to  obey,  —  nor,  indeed,  can  I  perctivo  how  the  father,  under 
your  system,  would  deserve  honor  at  the  hands  of  his  child.  In  such  a  ) 
pandemonium  as  that  system  would  inevitably  create,  I  could  not  i-hoo6e  to 
So  long  as  those  who  think  as  I  do  are  the  majority  in  this  country,  the  practi- 
tioners on  your  principles  will  be  dealt  with  by  law  like  other  malefactors ;  and,  if 
t'VL'r  your  disciples  shall  gain  the  ascendancy,  we  will  go  hence  to  some  land  where 
mothers  are  not  necessarily  wantons,  love  is  not  lust,  and  the  s<.'lfish  pursuit  of  sen- 
>iuil  gratillcation  is  not  dignified  with  the  honors  due  to  wisdom  and  virtue. 

more  than  thirty  miles  from  kouio.    The  principle,  u  a  prlaciplc,  li  just  m  good  in  one  caae  u  the 

OtLlT.     • 

Tlie /ac<  is  tlint,  lii  nine  caAe«  oat  of  teu,  children  had  much  Ix-lttT  Imj  reared  by  loiDebody  el«e  than 
by  either  one  or  both  of  the  |>urenta,  — in  nuuiy  cnM>s,  by  almost  anybody  c1m<.  I  iuire  yet  to  Irani  on 
lirincipio  or  by  otis<TVatlon  tluit  tlio  mere  caiMc-ity  to  be};ct  children  is  any  sufflcicnt  certificate  of  com- 
IH-tency  to  rear  them  proiK-riy.  —  S.  P.  A. 

*T}iia  point  also  n-quirea  an  answer,  which  1«,  simply,  that  I  claim  the  right  for  each  IndirldnaJ  for 
hiniKolf  to  Jndpc  of  the  purity  of  suclety  nnd  tlio  sovi-rciguty  of  (tod,  instead  of  taking  Mr.  Greelej't 
decision  on  the  subject  us  final.    Such  is  the  soTarvlgnty  of  the  indiridoai —  S.  P.  A. 


56  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce, 


IX. 

MR.  JAMES'S  REPLY. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune: 

I  declined  controversy  with  your  correspondent,  Mr.  S.  P.  Andrews,  not  because 
of  any  personal  disrespect  for  him,  but  chiefly  for  the  reason  stated  at  the  time, 
—  that  his  objections  to  my  views  of  divorce  were  trivial,  fallacious,  and  dis- 
ingenuous. I  may  now  further  say  that  his  general  opinions  on  the  subject  in 
discussion  between  the  "Observer"  and  myself  did  not,  besides,  seem  to  me  of 
sulFicient  weight  to  invite  a  public  i-efutation.  I  may  have  been  mistaken,  but 
such  was,  and  such  continues  to  bef,  my  conviction.  It  is,  accordingly,  more  anms- 
ing  than  distressing  to  observe  that  your  correspondent's  vanity  has  converted  what 
was  simply  indifference  on  my  part  into  dread  of  his  vast  abilities.  But  lest  any 
of  your  readers  should  partake  this  delusion,  let  me  say  a  few  words  in  vindication 
of  my  conviction. 

We  all  know  that  marriage  is  the  union,  legally  ratified,  of  one  man  with  one 
woman  for  life.  And  we  all  know,  moreover,  that  many  of  the  subjects  of  this 
union  find  themselves  in  very  unhappy  relations  to  each  other,  and  are  guilty  of 
reciprocal  infidelities  and  barbarities  in  consequence,  which  keep  society  in  a  per- 
petual commotion.  Now,  in  speaking  of  these  infidelities  and  barbarities,  I  have 
always  said  that  they  appeared  to  me  entirely  cural>le  l>y  enlarging  the  grounds  of 
divorce.  For,  holding,  as  I  do,  that  the  human  heart  is  the  destined  home  of  con- 
stancy and  every  courteous  atfection,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  it  will  abound  in 
these  fruits  precisely  as  it  becomes  practically  honored,  or  left  to  its  own  cultivated 
instincts.  Thus  I  have  insisted  tliat,  if  you  allowed  two  persons  who  were  badly 
assorted  to  separate  upon  their  joint  application  to  the  State  for  leave,  and  upon 
giving  due  securities  for  the  maintenance  of  their  ofl'spring,  you  would  be  actually 
taking  away  one  great,  existing  stimulant  to  conjugal  inconstancy,  and  giving  this 
very  couple  the  most  powerful  of  all  motives  to  renewed  affection.  For,  unques- 
tionably, every  one  admits  that  he  does  not  cheerfully  obey  compulsion,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  evades  it  at  every  opportunity;  and  it  is  matter  of  daily  observa- 
tion that  no  mere  legal  bondage  secures  conjugal  fidelity  where  mutual  love  and 
respect  are  wanting  between  the  parties.  You  instinctively  feel  also  that  a  con- 
jugal fidelity  which  should  obey  that  motive  chiefly  would  be  a  reproach  to  the 


Love^  JIarria(/ey  and  Divorce.  o7 

name.     You  feel  tlial  all  man's  relations  to  his  fellows,  :i     ! 

should  be  bai)tized  from  above,  or  acknowledge  an  ideal 

and  that  where  this  sanction  is  absent,  conseijuenlly  the  reiuiiun  ia  uilher  .- 

infantile  or  else  iidiuman.     In  res[)ect  to  this  higher  sanction  and  bond  of  co:.^    ^  .. 

fidelity,  you  call  the  legal  bond  inferior  or  ba^e.     As  serving  and  promoting  the 

former,  one  deems  the  latter  excellent  anddunorable;  but  as  ceasing  any  longer 

to  do  so,  you  deem  it  low  and  bestial.     Now,  I  have  simply  insisted  that  the  li-vul 

sanctions  of  marriage  should,  by  a  due  cnlari^'emfnt  of  t! 

kept  strictly  subservient  and  ministerial  to  the  lii^her  or    ; 

for  my  own  part,  not  the  shallow  of  a  doubt  tiiat,  in  that  case,  coiuitaucy  would 

speedily  avouch  itself  the  law  of  the  conjugal  relation,  instead  of,  as  now,  the  rare 

exception. 

In   this  state  of  things  your  correspondent  appears  on   the  scene,  i 
amid  many  other  small  insolences  and  puerile  affectations,  not  to  l>e  • 
me,  and  yet  betraying  so  crude  an  apprehension  of  the  discussion  into  which  ho  is 
ambitious  to  thrust  himself  that  he  actually  confounds  my  denunciation  of  l>a.se 
and  unworthy  motives  in  marriage  with  a  denunciation  of  the  marriage  institution 
itself  I     I  have  simply  and  uniformly  said  that  the  man  who  fulfils  the  dut! 
his  conjugal  relation  from  no  tenderer  or  humaner  ground  than  the  law,  n 
jK'nalties  secure  him  immunky  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  relation,  proves  hiH:--ii 
the  subject  of  a  base  legal  or  outward  slavery  merely,  instead  of  a  noble  and  r>  lin- 
ing sentiment.     And  hereupon  your  sagacious  and  alarming  correspondent  cries 
out  that  I  resolve  "the  whole  and  solo  substance  of  marriage  into  a  legal  bond  or 
outward  force,  which  is  diabolical  and  should  be  wholly  abolished  and  «lisjx?nsed 
with."     Surely  your  correspondent  must  admit  tiiat,  when  a  man 
voke  the  sanction  of  society  to  their  union,  neither  they  nor  any  oi: 
society's  action  in  the  premises  as  a  constraint,  as  a  compulsion.     'NVhy  .'     liecause 
society  is  doing  the  precise  thing  they  want  it  to  do.     With  united  hearts  they 
beg  of  society  to  sanction  their  union,  and  .society  does  so.     Your  correspondent 
can  not  accordingly  be  so  dull  as  to  look  uj>on  society's  inili;r 
pulsory  V     The  marriage  j)artners,  at  this  i>eriod,  are  united  \>. 
deride  the  conception  of  a  rompnl>(>iy  union.     But,  now,  suppose  timt  liiis 
tion,  from  wliatever  cause,  has  cea.>«ed,  while  the  legal  sanction  ol  their  uiii. 
mains  unchanged;  can  not  your  corres{>ondent  understand  that  the  tie  which  now 
binds  them  might  seem,  in  compari.>ion  with  tlie  ])uru  and  elevated  one  which  had 
lapsed,  "a  base  legal  bondage,  iv  mere  outward  forct?"?     If  ho  can  not.  let  me  iriro 
him  an  illustration  exactly  to  the  iH)int.     I  find  a  ]"  t 

purst!  of  money,  which  the  law,  under  certain  iH'iial; 

Out  of  regard  to  these  [tenalties  purely,  and  from  no  sentiment  nl  justice  or  man- 
liness, I  restore  it  to  the  owner.  llereuiKin  my  spiritual  ailviscr,  while  approving 
my  act,  denounces  the  motive  of  it  an  derogatory  to  true  inaidiuod,  which  would 


58  Love^  AfarriagCy  and  Divorce. 

have  restored  the  purse  from  the  sheer  delight  of  doing  a  right  thing,  or,  what  is 
equivalent,  the  sheer  loathing  of  doing  a  dirty  one.  What,  now,  would  your  cor- 
respondent think  of  a  verdant  gentleman  who,  in  this  state  of  things,  should  charge 
my  adviser  "with  doslroving  the  institution  of  private  property,  with  resolving  it 
into  aba.se  legal  bondage,  and  dooming  it  to  an  inccntinent  abolition"?  Would 
he  not  think  tliat  this  verdant  gentleman's  interference  had  been  slightly  super- 
lluous?  But  whatever  ho  thinks,  one  thh)g  is  clear,  which  is  that  the  realm  of  logic 
will  not  for  a  moment  tolerate  your  correspondent's  notion  of  "Individual  Sove- 
n-ignty."  Whoso  violates  the  canons  of  this  despotic  realm  by  the  exhdiition  of 
any  private  sovereignty  linds  himself  instantly  relegated  by  an  inflexible  Nemesis, 
and  in  spite  of  any  amount  of  sonorous  self-complacency,  back  to  the  disjected 
sphere  which  he  is  qualified  to  adorn,  and  from  wliich  he  has  meanwhile  unhand- 
somely absconded. 

I  am  sure  that  it  is  only  this  foolish  notion  of  the  "Sovereignty  of  the  Individual" 
which  obscures  your  correspondent's  mother-wit.  I  call  the  notion  foolish,  be- 
cause, as  I  find  it  here  propounded,  it  is  uncommonly  foolish.  As  well  as  I  can 
master  its  contents,  it  runs  thus:  That  every  man  has  a  right  to  do  as  he  pleases, 
provided  he  will  accept  the  consequences  of  so  doing.  The  proposition  is  strik- 
ingly true,  although  it  is  anything  but  new.  Thus  you  are  at  liberty,  and  have 
been  so  since  the  fomidation  of  the  world,  to  eat  gi-een  apples,  provided  you  will 
accept  a  consequent  colic  without  wincing.  Or  you  are  at  liberty  to  prostitute,  by 
dishonest  arts,  your  neighbor's  daughter,  provided  you  are  willing  to  encounter 
for  so  doing  the  scorn  of  every  honest  nature.  Or  the  thief  is  at  liberty  to  steal, 
provided  he  will  bear  the  consequences  of  doing  so ;  and  the  liar  to  lie,  provided  he 
will  accept  the  consequences  of  lying.  All  these  are  instances  of  "Individual 
Sovereignty."  They  illustrate  the  doctrine  more  than  they  commend  it.  For, 
while  no  rogue  ever  doubted  his  perfect  freedom  to  swindle,  on  condition  of  his 
accepting  its  consequences,  I  take  it  that  no  rogue  was  ever  such  a  goose  as  to  view 
that  condition  itself  as  a  satisfactory  exhibition  of  his  sovereignty.  As  a  general 
thing,  rogues  are  a  shrewd  folk,  and  I  suspect  you  would  canvass  all  Sing-Sing 
b.'fore  you  would  light  upon  a  genius  so  original  as  to  regard  his  four  irrefragable 
walls  as  so  many  arguments  of  his  individual  sovereignty. 

To  think  of  a  preposterous  "handful  uf  men"  in  the  nineteenth  century  of  the 
Christian  era  "accepting  and  announcing  for  the  first  time  in  the  world" — and 
no  doubt  also  for  the  last  —  "the  sovereignty  of  the  individual,  with  all  its  con- 
sequences" —  however  disorderly,  of  course  —  "as  the  principle  of  order  as  well  as 
of  liberty  and  happiness  among  men  "  I  Was  ever  a  more  signal  proof  given  of  the 
incompetency  of  democracy  as  a  constructive  principle  than  tliat  afforded  by  this 
conceited  handful  of  fanatics?  They  are  doubtless  more  or  less  men  of  intelli- 
gence, and  yet  they  mistake  the  purely  disorganizing  ministries  of  democracy  for 
so  many  positive   results,  for  so  much  scientific  construction,  and  identify  the 


L(yvc^  J/arrl(i(/e,  ami  Divorce.  .'<0 

reign  of  universal  order  and  liberty  with  the  very  dissolution  of  nioruii  n\:>i  ijie 
promulgation  of  abject  license  I  In  the  discolored  corpse  thoy  see  only  the  blootu- 
ing  hues  of  life,  and  in  the  most  pungent  eviileiues  of  corruption  recogniz«  the 
flavor  of  immortality.  Your  corresj>ondeiit  profisses  to  admire  "pluck,"  hut  it 
seems  to  mo  that  the  "[iluck"  which  takes  a  man  blindly  over  a  precipice  and 
leaves  him  crowing  at  the  bottom  over  an  undamaged  sconce  and  an  uni>erturlK.>d 
philosophy  necessarily  implies  the  usual  accompaniment  of  sheep's-head  uImj. 

Your  correspondent  kindly  applauds  an  observation  of  mine  l«  the  efT.-rl  that 
"freedom  is  one  with  order  ";  and  I  infer  from  the  general  t4-iior  of  his  K-tl.-r  that 
I  have  hitherto  enjoyed  a  iiunsi  patronage  at  his  hands.  Now,  I  will  not  aflect  an 
indifference,  which  I  by  no  means  feel,  to  th^  favorable  estimation  ol  your  cor- 
respondent, or  any  other  well-<lisposed  person,  but  I  am  incai^ablo  of  purchasing 
that  advantage  at  the  expense  of  truth.  It  would  doubtless  greatly  suit  your 
correspondent  if,  when  I  say  "freedom  is  one  with  order,"  I  hlumlil  n!s<i  nd<I, 
"and  order  is  one  with  license,"  but  I  really  cannot  gratify  him  in  • 
.•somehow,  as  he  himself  naively  phrases  it,  when  I  "apply  my  int- 
that  conclusion,  it  flickers  out  into  obscurity  and  darkness."  llather  let  mu  say,  it 
reddens  into  a  lurid  and  damnable  falsehood.  I  can  not,  therefore,  regret  the 
withdrawal  of  a  patronage  of  which  I  Ijave  been  both  unworthy  and  unconscious. 
I  can  not  reduce  my  brain  to  mud,  were  my  reward  to  l>o  the  approbatii"  •' 

a  much  more  plenary  "handful"  of  individual  sovereignties  than  that  r.  i 

by  your  correspondent  is  ever  likely  to  grow. 

For  my  own  part,  Mr.  Editor,  I  can  conceive  of  no  "individual  sovereignty " 
which  precedes  a  man's  perfect  adjustment  to  nature  and  society.  I  have  imi« 
formly  viewed  man  as  under  a  threefold  subjection,  first  to  nature,  then  to  society, 
and  finally  to  (led.  His  api>etites  and  his  sensuous  understanding  relate  him  to 
nature;  his  passions  and  his  rational  understanding  relate  him  to  .society  or  his 
ft'llow-man;  and  his  ideas  relate  lum  to  (Jod.  Now,  as  to  the  lirst  two  of  tbeso 
spheres,  man's  subjection  is  obviously  absolute.  If,  for  example,  he  indulge  his 
appetites  capriciously  or  Iwyond  a  certain  limit,  he  pays  a  jH>nalty,  whatever  Ihj  his 
alleged  "sovereignty."  And  if  he  indulge  his  passions  l>eyond  the  limit  prfscril»ed 
by  the  interests  of  society,  he  pays  an  inevitable  pt-nalty  in  that  cax*  also,  however 
sublime  an<l  Ixmutiful  his  private  pretensions  may  bo.  To  talk  of  nuui's  w.)ve- 
n'ignty,  therefop',  in  eitlu'r  a  physical  or  moral  point  of  view,  save  as  exertctl  in 
the  obedience  of  physical  and  moral  limitations,  is  transparent  noniM'nse.  And 
even  regardeil  as  so  exert«d,  the  nons4>nso  is  scarcely  more  opaque.  For  what  kind 
of  sovereignty  is  that  which  is  known  only  by  its  limitations,  which  is  oxorcLiod 
only  in  subjection  to  something  el.H4<?  Thi-re  are,  ind<>«><l.  iixli-initnllf  .sovert-igns 
without  any  t«'rrit<iii;il  (;ii:i!ilirationH,  but  their  titles  :  v  Nvau.to  they 

arc  men  of  diseased  tacultii  s,  whom  one  would  bo  ui  of  a  soothing 

illusion. 


60  Xore,  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

What,  thfu,  i\<  the  sphere  of  human  freedom,  of  human  sovereiguty?  It  is  the 
sphere  of  ideas,  the  sphere  of  man's  subjection  to  God.  As  ideas  are  infinite,  as 
they  adniiL  no  contrast  or  oppugnaiiey,  ;u>  they  are  perftclly  good,  and  true,  and 
beautiful,  so,  of  course,  the  more  unlimited  a  man's  subjection  to  them  becomes, 
the  more  unlimited  becomes  his  freedom  or  sovereignty.  He  who  obeys  his  api>e- 
tites  merely  finds  himself  speedily  betrayed  by  the  inflexible  laws  of  nature  to  dis- 
ease and  death.  He  who  obeys  his  passions  merely  finds  himself  betrayed  by  the 
inflexible  laws  of  society  to  shame  and  seclusion.  But  he  who  obeys  ideas,  he  who 
gives  himself  up  to  the  guidance  of  infinite  goodness,  truth,  and  beauty,  encoun- 
ters no  limitation  at  the  hands  either  of  nature  or  society,  and,  instead  of  disease 
and  shame,  plucks  only  the  fruits  of  health  and  immortal  honor.  For  it  constitutes 
the  express  and  inscrutable  perfection  of  the  divine  life  that  he  who  yields  himself 
with  least  reserve  to  that  most  realizes  life  in  himself;  even  as  He  who  best  knew 
its  deptlis  mystically  said.  Whoso  tcill  lose  his  life  temporarily  shall  find  it  eternally, 
and  whoso  will  save  it  shall  lose  it. 

But  the  indispensable  condition  of  one's  realizing  freedom  or  sovereignty  in  this 
sphere  is  that  he  be  previously  in  complete  accord  with  nature  and  society,  with 
liis  own  body  and  his  feUow-man.  Because  so  long  as  a  man's  physical  subsistence 
is  insecure,  and  the  respect  of  his  fellow-men  unattained,  it  is  evident  that  his 
highest  instincts,  or  his  ideas  of  goodness  and  truth,  can  receive  no  direct,  but 
only  a  negative  obedience.  His  daily  bread  is  still  uncertain,  and  the  social  posi- 
tion of  himself  and  family  completely  unachieved;  these  ends  consequently  claim 
all  his  direct  or  spontaneous  activity,  and  he  meanwhile  confesses  himself  the  ab- 
ject vassal  of  natme  and  society.  In  this  state  of  things,  of  course,  or  while  he 
remains  in  this  vassalage, — while  his  whole  soul  is  intent  upon  purely  finite  ends, 
—  the  ideal  sphere,  the  sphere  of  infinitude  or  perfection,  remains  wholly  shut  up, 
or  else  only  faintly  imaged  to  him  in  the  symbols  of  a  sensuous  theology.  I  say  "of 
course,"  for  how  can  the  infantile  imagination  of  man,  instructed  as  yet  only  by 
the  senses,  receive  any  idea  of  a  good  which  is  infinite?  It  necessarily  views  the 
infinite  as  only  an  indefinite  extension  of  the  finite,  and  accordingly  swamps  the 
divine  life  —  swamps  the  entire  realm  of  spiritual  being — in  gross  materiality. 

No  man  accordingly  can  realize  the  true  freedom  he  has  in  God,  until,  by  the 
advance  of  society,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  the  growing  spiritual  culture  of  the 
race,  he  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  appetite  and  passion.  A's  appetites  and 
passions  are  as  strong  mider  repression  as  B's.  Why  does  he  not  yield  them  the 
same  ready  obedience?  It  is  because  society  has  placed  A  above  their  dominion 
by  giving  him  all  the  resources  of  spiritual  culture  and  bringing  him  accordingly 
under  the  influence  of  infinite  ideas,  under  the  direct  inspirations  of  God.  The 
sentiment  of  unity  he  experiences  with  God  involves  that  also  of  his  unity  with 
natjire  and  society,  and  his  obedience  to  ajipetite,  therefore,  can  never  run  into 
vice,  nor  his  indulgence  of  passion  into  crime.     In  short,  the  inexpugnable  condi- 


Lorce^  Marrlatjt.,  and  D'trorcti,  (II 

tion  of  his  every  action  is  that  it  involve  no  degradation  to  hi«  own  bo<ly  and  no 
detriment  to  his  fellow-man.  Now,  what  society  ha.s  don<!  for  A  it  has  yet  t<»  >li> 
for  B  and  the  entire  alphal)ct  of  its  members.  When  it  has  brought  them  into 
perfect  fellowship  w  ith  each  other,  or  made  duty  and  interest  exactly  reciprocal, 
then  every  man  will  be  free  to  do  as  he  ]>lea.ses,  because  his  appetites  and  pa«sionH, 
receiving  their  due  and  normal  satisfaction,  will  no  longer  grow  infuriate  from 
starvation,  nor  consequently  jiennit  the  loathsome  and  morbid  displays  they  in  .v. 
yield.  I  will  not  say  any  such  stiipidity  as  that  man  will  then  "bo  free  to  d"  .i- 
he  plea.ses,  provided  ho  will  take  the  conseiiuences";  for  in  a  true  fellowsliii  ■ 
mankind  no  action  of  any  member  can  i>ossibly  ^^eget  evil  consequences,  eilh<T  !  ■ 
himself  or  others,  since  the  universal  practical  reconciliation  of  interest  with  duty 
will  always  make  it  his  plea.sure  to  «lo  only  what  is  noble  and  undcfiled.  A  free- 
dom which  consists  in  taking  the  consequences  of  one's  actions,  when  one's  actions 
are  not  at  the  same  time  jwrfectly  regulated  by  a  scienti' 
among  men,  is  such  a  freedom  as  men  may  enjoy  in  hell,  ^. 

and  insensibility  constitutes  virtue.  But  I  incline  to  think  that  hell,  with  its 
fashions,  Is  dying  out  of  human  respect  every  day,  and  that  society  is  continually 
approximating  that  contrary  state  in  which  a  man's  power  will  accurately  reflect 
the  measure  of  his  humanitary  worth,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  his  elevation  bo 
strictly  proportionate  to  his  humility. 

Your  corre.six)ndent,  very  consistently,  exhibits  a  sovereign  contempt  for  society, 
and  calls  the  State  a  "mob";  and  this  judgment  gives  you  a  fair  insight  into  his 
extreme  superficiality  of  observation.  Irresponsible  govemmfnU,  or  thoso  which  do 
not  studiously  oWy  the  expanding  needs  of  society,  are  doubtless  entitled  to  hearty 
contempt.  Their  day,  indeed,  is  over,  and  nothing  remains  in  the  sight  of  nil  rn<Mi 
but  to  give  them  a  decent  interment.  But  society  never  decays.  It  iii' 
vigor  with  the  ages.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  advance  of  society  among  men,  thf 
ening  of  the  sentiment  of  fellowship  or  equality  in  the  human  bosom,  whioh  is 
chiefly  uprooting  arbitrary  governments.  It  is  bucauso  man  is  now  beginning  to 
feel,  a.s  he  never  felt  lK?fore,  his  social  omnijxjtence,  or  the  boundless  succor,  l>oth 
material  and  spiritual,  which  the  fellowship  of  his  kind  insures  him,  that  he  is 
looking  away  from  governments  and  from  whatsoever  external  patronage,  and  fiml- 
ing  true  help  at  last  in  himself.  Accordingly,  if  there  is  any  hope  which  now  more 
than  another  brightens  the  eye  of  intelligent  persons,  it  is  the  immense  social 
promi-se  opened  up  to  them  by  every  discovery  in  the  arts  an<l  every  new  gcnerali* 
nation  of  science.  Society  is  the  solo  direct  l>oneficiary  of  the  arts  and 
and  the  individual  man  Incomes  a  partaker  of  their  bounties  only  by  h: 
cation  with  it.  Thus  the  l>e.st  aspiration  of  the  individual  mind  is  l>ound  tip  wiiii 
the  progress  of  society.  Only  as  society  rijH'ns,  only  as  a  fellowtihip  so  sacnsl  ol>- 
tains  between  man  and  man,  as  that  each  shall  si>ontanoou8ly  do  unto  the  oUier  lis 
he  would  have  the  other  do  to  himself,  will  the  true  development  of  individual 


62 


Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 


character  and  destiny  be  possible.  Because  the  very  unity  of  man's  creative  source 
forbids  that  one  of  its  creatures  shall  be  strong,  except  by  the  strength  of  all 
the  rest.  Yours  truly,  Henry  James. 

New  York,  January  29. 


«l 


Love^  Marriaye^  and  Divorce.  63 


X. 

MR.  Andrews's  reply  to  mr.  greelet. 

[Rejected  by  Tlio  Tribune.] 
Horace  Greeley: 

I  might  insist  that  leading  positions  in  my  last  article  are  not  replied  to  at  all 
in  yours.  I  will  content  myself,  however,  with  noticing  what  wsaid  and  suggested 
by  you. 

First,  then,  believe  me,  it  was  by  oversight,  and  not  intentionally,  that  I  included 
"freedom  from  State  systems  of  religion"  among  the  kinds  of  freedom  which  you 
had  assigned  to  the  broader  designation  of  "the  sovereignty  of  the  individual."  It 
so  obviously  belongs  in  the  same  category  that  you  must  confess  the  mistake  waa  a 
very  natural  one.  I  observe  now,  however,  tliat  the  grouping  of  the  various  appli- 
cations of  the  doctrine  was  my  own,  and  that  I  was  wrong  in  attributing  it,  in  its 
full,  logical,  and  legitimate  extension,  to  you.  It  was  not  until  you  directed  my 
attention  to  the  point  that  I  discovered  that,  while  your  approbation  is  given  to 
just  those  developments  of  freedom  which  have,  up  to  the  present  time,  been 
accredited  and  rendered  popular  in  the  world,  you  classify  under  the  obnoxious 
"sovereignty  of  the  individual"  those  varieties,  and  those  only,  which  are,  as  yet, 
unpopular,  or  against  which  you  happen  to  have  a  personal  prejudice.  This  specios 
of  reasoning,  though  not  very  rare,  I  believe,  is  still  so  little  understood  by  me  that 
I  do  not  even  know  the  scientific  name  by  which  to  designate  it.  Excuse  me,  then, 
that  I  did  not  perceive  why  free  trade  comes  under  the  head  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  individual  (or  the  general  right  to  do  as  one  chooses),  and  freedom  of  the  press 
not  so;  or  why  there  is  a  similar  difference  between  freedom  of  the  affections  and 
freedom  of  the  conscience,  or  of  the  intellect. 

I  certainly  thought  you  held  the  Kossuthian  doctrine  of  national  non-interven- 
tion. You  set  me  right,  and  say  you  "deplore  the  absence  of  competent  tribunals 
to  adjudicate  questions  of  international  difference,"  etc.  Hero  you  obviouisly  do 
not  speak  of  a  mere  advisory  council,  each  nation  being  free  to  accept  or  decline 
the  recommendation,  but  of  an  actual  court.  "Tribunal,"  "con)p<'toncy,"  and 
"adjudication"  are  well-known  technicals  of  the  so-called  "administration  of  jus- 
tice." They  always  relate  to  the  functions  of  a  botly  having  pntrrr  to  enforce  its 
decrees.  There  is  no  court  without  a  constable,  no  sentence  without  a  sanction,  no 
Judiciary  without  an  executive!     The  constabulary  of  an  international  tribunal 


04  Lovej  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

must  be  the  united  armies  and  navies  of  the  majority  of  the  combined  powers. 
Any  other  notion  of  such  a  court  is  nonsense.  Now,  dare  you  affirm,  in  the  face 
of  the  American  people,  that  you  would  favor  the  surrender,  by  solemn  treaty,  into 
the  hands  of  such  a  tribunal,  representing  the  national  policy  of  Austria,  Russia, 
Spain,  Portugal,  Home,  Naples,  etc.,  —  the  majority  of  nations  in  Christendom, 
even, — the  right  to  adjudicate  for  tlie  United  States  all  the  intenialional  questions. 
even,  which  they  might  themselves  individually  provoke  with  us,  and  to  enforce 
such  decisions  by  their  combined  power?  You  say  such  a  court  would  have  pre- 
vented the  I^Iexican  war.  Yes,  as  order  reigns  at  "Warsaw.  Give  up,  I  beseech 
you,  the  search  after  the  remedy  for  the  evils  of  government  in  more  government. 
The  road  lies  just  the  other  way,  —  toward  individuality  and  freedom  from  all  gov- 
ernment. The  evil  in  the  case  of  the  Mexican  war  lay  in  the  stupendous  folly 
which  authorized  James  K.  Polk,  of  Tennessee,  by  a  stroke  of  his  pen,  to  set  thirty 
millions  of  men  to  cutting  each  other's  throats — to  begin  the  next  morning  —  for 
no  cause  which  would  have  induced  one  of  them  to  do  anything  of  the  kind  on  his 
own  responsibility.  It  is  the  inherent  viciousness  of  the  very  institution  of  govern- 
ment itself  never  to  be  got  rid  of  until  our  natural  individuality  of  action  and 
responsibility  is  restored.  Nature  made  individuals,  not  nations  ;  and,  while  nations 
exist  at  all,  the  liberties  of  the  individual  must  perish. 

But  the  kind  of  intervention  you  advocate  between  nations,  bad  as  it  is,  is  no 
parallel,  as  you  seem  to  think  it,  to  that  unsolicited  and  impertinent  interference 
between  indi\'iduals  which  you  defend  and  I  denounce.  What  would  you  say  to 
an  international  tribunal  which  should  arrogate  jurisdiction  to  itself  over  nations 
who  have  never  consented  to,  and  who  wholly  repudiate,  its  interference, — basing 
its  usurpation  on  the  assumption  that  somebody  must  look  after  the  international 
morality?  Further  still,  fancy  Mr.  Greeley  signing  a  treaty  to  give  to  Austria, 
Naples,  etc.,  the  right,  not  only  to  settle  differences  between  us  and  other  nations, 
but  to  forbid  us,  also,  to  have  relations  of  friendship  or  commerce  with  more  than 
one  other  nation,  for  example;  and  generally  to  regulate,  not  merely  our  foreign, 
but  our  purely  private  affairs  as  well,  by  prohibiting  whatever  in  the  judgment  of 
that  tribunal  was  setting  a  bad  example  before  the  other  nations  of  the  earth  1  No, 
thank  God !  nations  have  not  fancied  it  necessary  to  sink  their  individuality  in  a 
mass,  as  individuals  have  done,  granting  to  numerical  stupidity  and  stolid  medi- 
ocrity the  right  to  suppress  genius  and  enterprise  and  free  thought  and  superioi- 
development.  To  this  national  freedom  from  an  overruling  legislation  the  world 
owes  the  height  to  which  a  few  nations  have  attained,  which,  being  attained,  will 
react  on  the  others,  and  finally  develop  the  whole  earth.  No,  sir,  ten  individuals 
in  the  world,  who  had  thoroughly  comprehended  their  own  absolute  right  to  free- 
dom, and  vindicated  it  as  against  the  impertinent  interference  of  legislation,  would 
be  worth,  as  an  example  and  as  a  power  for  good,  all  the  international  tribunals 
there  might  be  in  the  universe. 


Love,  M(irri(ni{\  and  Dlvf/rce.  65 

I  claim  iiulividually  to  he  my  own  nation.  I  take  this  opportunity  to  declare 
my  national  independence,  and  to  notify  all  other  potentates,  that  they  may  respect 
my  sovereignty.  I  may  have  to  fi;^ht  to  establish  my  claim,  ]>nt  th<'  claim  I  make, 
and  sooner  or  later  I  will  come  to  tho  recognition  of  it.  Yon  liave  notified  me  that 
you  will  resist  it.  I  will  conduct  the  war  with  you,  if  possible,  hy  the  pen.  If  you 
determine  to  resort  to  other  weapons,  I  will  adjust  my  defence  to  the  nature  of 
the  onset. 

The  State  is  to  you  something  other  than  what  I  have  called  it,  —  a  mob,  —  be- 
cause you  believe  that  the  heat  of  passion  and  tho  lust  of  gain  may  blind  men  in 
judging  their  own  conduct,  and  not  so  in  judging  the  conduct  of  others.  If  this  is 
good  for  anything,  as  a  principle,  it  must  be  of  reciprocal  and  universal  applica- 
tion. Let  us  take  a  case  and  try  its  operation.  John  Smith  an<l  Sally  Smith,  af- 
ter years  of  miserable  experience,  and  horrid  example,  too,  as  I  should  say, 
amicably  conclude  to  separate,  do  separate,  provide  for  their  children  by  some  ajv- 
propi-iate  arrangement  which  removes  them  from  a  daily  .scene  of  sickening  and 
vitiating  contest,  and  each  unites  with  a  new  partner,  and  all  th<!  parties  feel  con- 
scious that  they  have  added  infinitely  to  their  happiness  and  well-being;  but  you, 
on  your  principle,  that  somebody  else,  who  is  not  blinded  Wcauso  lie  has  no 
interest  in  the  matter,  can  decide  better' than  they,  interfere,  and  decide  for  them 
that  they  were  led  by  a  shade  of  i>assion  which  you  define  to  be  lust  into  their  new 
relations;  denounce  them  in  your  newspajxT,  and  invoke  tho  mob,  and  send  them 
all  packing  to  the  calaboose.     Very  well,  so  far;  but  now  for  the  next  application. 

Upon  the  .same  principle,  I  can  judge  better  than  you  can  of  the  purity  of  your 
motives  in  this  very  act,  and  I  determine  that  you  were  influenced  by  an  undue 
desire  to  increase  tho  popularity  of  your  journal,  by  j^arading  your  zeal  for  the 
current  morality  of  the  day,  and  that  such  an  example  of  the  venality  of  the  press 
is  extremely  vitiating  to  tho  public  mind.  My  impartial  ]>osition  for  judging  au- 
thorizes me  to  judge  and  to  punish  yoit  for  deviating  from  my  judgment.  Hence  I 
resort  to  the  mob,  and  burn  down  your  printing-ollice,  or  throw  your  types  into 
the  ocean.  Now,  then,  how  is  your  mob  any  better  than  my  mob,  —  except  that 
yours  is  called  "the  State  "?  Do  you  find  it  in  the  distinction  j'ou  attempt  to  es- 
tablish between  freedom  of  utterance  ami  freedom  of  action,  —  one  of  which  is  to 
be  tolerated  and  the  other  not?  That  would  only  be  to  turn  my  vengeance  from 
you  personally  to  the  passive  instruments  of  your  opinion,  —  the  juries  and  prison- 
keepers. 

You,  too,  desire  "the  harmonizing  of  freedom  with  order,  but  not  through  the 
removal  of  restraint  upon  vicious  api>etite;  the  hannonizing  of  desire  with  duty, 
—  not  through  the  blotting  out  of  the  latter,  but  through  the  <  ha>l<iiing.  renovat- 
ing, and  purifying  of  the  former."  Very  well;  but  how?  Areording  to  you, 
through  a  system  of  mutual  espionage,  suppression,  and  constraint ;  from  which  I 
dissent.     You  .say,  also,  however,  through  "tho  diffusion  of  light  and  truth  with 


GO  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

regard  to  our  own  natures,  organizations,  purposes,  and  that  divine  law  which 
overrules  and  irradiates  all."  To  this  I  agree.  Choose,  I  beg  of  you,  before  you 
write  again,  between  the  two  systems,  which  are  as  opposite  as  light  and  darkness. 
But  this  harmonizing  will  never  come  by  any  system  through  the  tempering  and 
modifying  of  desire  alone;  it  demands  equally  the  softening  and  liberalizing  of 
duty,  since  "to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure."  We  differ,  pwhaps,  botli  as  to  the 
source  whence  a  healthful  restraint  must  emanate,  and  as  to  the  amount  of  restraint 
which  is  healthful. 

You  think  there  is  no  such  radical  difference  between  us  as  to  the  right  of  self- 
government,  because,  you  say,  T  acquiesce  in  the  imposition  of  restraint  ujjon  the 
lunatic,  the  thief,  burglar,  counterfeiter,  forger,  maimer,  and  murderer.  If  I  do, 
it  is  as  the  temporary  necessity  of  a  false  and  bad  social  system,  which  rualcen  such 
characters,  and  must,  therefore,  take  care  of  them.  It  is  your  duty,  I  think,  to  ad- 
vocate a  Maine  liquor  law  as  long  as  you  advocate  compelling  a  woman  to  bear  a 
drunkard's  child,  with  a  drunkard's  vitiated  appetite  from  the  hour  of  quickening 
into  life.  Can  you  perceive  no  difference  between  my  making  this  admission  of 
your  duty  relative  to  a  prior  wrong,  and  advocating  the  whole  system  as  a  right 
system,  as  you  do?  I  would,  like  another  man,  enforce  the  barbarous  discipline  of 
the  camp  in  time  of  war,  if  war  must  be;  but  that  should  not  hinder  me  from  in- 
sisting that  war  itself  is  a  great  folly  and  had  much  better  be  replaced  by  amicable 
relations  and  the  interchange  of  reciprocal  benefits  between  the  contending  people. 
I  beg  of  you  to  endeavor  to  master,  and  to  keep  always  ii  mind,  the  distinction 
which  I  drew  in  my  last  between  principle  and  expediency.  Is  it  possible  that  I 
cannot  make  myself  understood  upon  this  point?  I  do  not  even  assert  that  your 
laws  against  seduction  and  the  like  are  not  necessities  of  your  present  system,  just 
as  the  patrol  organization,  the  violation  of  the  post  office,  and  the  hanging  of 
abolitionists  are  necessities  of  slave-holding,  and  just  as  an  army  of  spies  and  the 
censorship  of  the  press  are  necessities  of  European  despotism,  so  long  as  either  is 
to  remain. 

If  two  cats  are  tied  up  in  a  bag,  the  tendency  of  this  "too  close  connection  "  will 
be  toward  contest  and  clamor.  You  will  probably  have  to  choke  them  to  keep 
them  tolerably  quiet.  If  the  bag  is,  then,  assumed  to  be  a  necessary  institution,  to 
be  maintained  at  all  hazards,  and  if  quiet  is  also  a  desideratum,  the  choking  will 
also  remain  a  perpetual  necessity.  Even  when  the  discovery  is  made  —  and  it  is 
to  this  point  that  I  ask  your  special  attention  —  that  the  cats  are  well  enough  dis- 
posed to  be  quiet  if  you  will  let  them  out,  it  may  still  be  necessary  to  keep  your 
fingers  on  their  throats  until  the  bag  can  be  cautiously  and  safely  untied,  the  cats 
extracted,  and  a  little  time  allowed  them  to  become  convinced  of  their  prospective 
good  treatment.  If  an  existing  bad  system  cannot  be  changed  at  once  without 
some  bad  consequences,  they  are  to  be  charged,  not  upon  the  right  system  which  is 
to  follow,  but  upon  the  remaining  influence  of  the  old  and  vicious  one. 


Lovc^  J/ii>'rl(i(/c,  and  Divorce.  ^7 

I  would  have  the  order  of  society  »o  founded  on  a  scientific  knowlidj^e  ol  the 
nature,  orgaiiizutioti,  and  purposes  of  man,  and  of  that  divine  law  whicli  overrule* 
and  irradiates  all,  that  there  shall  l>e  no  thief,  no  burglar,  no  maimer,  and  no  mur- 
derer; and  I  take  the  harden  of  proof  ui>on  myself  to  show  that  the  principles  aro 
now  known  in  accordance  with  which  it  is  just  as  practicable  to  have  Buch  a  nociety 
as  to  have  the  "  Pandemonium  "  we  now  have.  This  whole  liarvest  of  gallowA-birda 
is  the  fruit  of  your  tree,  not  of  mine,  and,  while  you  continue  to  pro<luce  them,  it 
belongs  to  you  to  provide  for  them.  I  do  not  even  deny  that  you  may  know  Wtter 
than  I  what  is  necessary  to  that  end. 

I  come  now  to  your  statement  of  principles.  1.  "Man  has  no  moral  right  to 
do  wrong."  I  deny  this  proiK)sition,  if  by  wrong  is  meant  exp<'diency  as  cli.stin- 
guished  from  abstract  right,  or  principle.  I  hold  to  expediency  just  as  religiously 
as  I  do  to  principle  it^self.  Yet  every  exjH'dient  which  deviates  from  abstract  prin- 
ciple, or  the  final  right,  is,  in  the  higher  .sense,  wrong.  I  hold  it,  then,  not  only 
innocent,  but  a  positivt;  duty,  often  to  do  one  wrong  thing  l>ecau.Hc  another  wrong 
thing  has  been  done.  I  refer  you  to  the  apologj'  for  your  tariff  doctrines  in  my 
last.  I  deny  your  proposition  agftin  most  emphatically,  if  by  wrong  is  meant 
what  somebody  else,  or  everybo<ly  else,  judges  U>  be  wrong,  and  which  I  «lo  not. 
What  wrong  is  it,  then,  that  I  have  not  a  right  to  do?  Is  it  yours?  or  Mr.  James's? 
or  Ivouis  Napoleon's?  or  the  Chan  of  Tartary's?  or  Mrs.  (Irundy's?  or  that  of  the 
majority  of  the  mob?  That  is  th<^  vital  question  which  I  shall  ntver  let  you  off 
from  answering;  and,  until  it  in  answered,  every  general  proposition  you  make  on 
the  subject  will,  when  analyzed,  mean  just  nothing  at  all.  Who  is  the  umpire,  or 
standard  of  right  and  truth? 

2.  "The  State  ought  to  forbid  and  repress  all  acts  whii-h  tend,  in  their  natural 
consequences,"  etc.,  "to  corrupt  the  morals  of  the  community,"  etc.  Here,  you 
jM-rceive,  comes  right  up  again  the  same  vital  question,  without  the  answer  to 
which  all  this  laying  down  of  principles  is  mere  trorth,  "Which  tend,"  etc.  —  in 
whose  judgment?  That  is  the  ]X)int  to  which  I  must  hold  your  attention.  The 
teachings  and  conduct  of  Christ  t<'nded,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Jewish  "State,"  to 
corrupt  the  morals  of  the  oommunity.  Did  that  confer  on  them  th«'  moral  riglit 
to  crucify  him?  It  is  nonsense,  Mr.  (Jrei'ley  (t-xcuse  me,  since  you  taui^'ht  me  the 
use  of  that  word),  to  call  either  of  these  propositions  of  yours  principles,  until  you 
first  settle  the  jurisdiction  of  the  questions  which  tJiey  raise.  I  veat  it  in  indivi- 
dual sovereignty.  Where  do  you  v.-  •  i*"'  T  beg  of  you  to  lay  down  a  general 
principle  covering  this  point. 

H.  "It  is  wiser,"  etc.,  "that  crimes  .should  U»  prermfed  than  that  they  should  bo 
punished."  Herein  we  agnH>;  but  how  prevented?  You  say  in  one  bn-ath,  by  )our 
.suppressing  me,  and  n>y  suppressih  ,'  you,  whenever  wi«  happf>n  to  differ.  —  that  Is, 
by  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  the  .strongest;  and  in  the  next,  "by  the  difTusion  of 
light  and  truth  with  regard  to  our  own  natures,"  etc.,  a«  I  have  alrendy  quoteU 
you.     I  accept  the  latter  method,  and  di.scard  the  former. 


68  Love,  ullarriaye,  and  Divorce. 

4.  "  The  great  raass  of  criminals,"  etc.,  "  begin  their  downward  courses  by  gam. 
bling,  tippling,  and  lewdness,"  etc.  I  take  this  to  be  a  mistake.  I  think  you  substi. 
tute  effects  for  causes.  Crime  has  its  origin  much  farther  back,  and,  if  you  are  to 
"deal  with  it  in  the  egg,"  you  must  look  to  the  laws  of  procreation,  by  which 
parents  impress  all  the  falsity  of  their  own  lives  upon  their  offspring.  I  shall 
notice  this  subject  again. 

5.  "Sexual  love  was  implanted,"  etc.,  "not  merely  that  the  race  should  be 
brought  into  existence,  but  properly  nurtured,  protected,"  elc.  This,  too,  is  a  mis- 
take. Nature  has  secured  the  procreation  of  the  race  by  the  sexual  passion.  She 
has  not  intrusted  their  maintenance  and  protection  in  infancy  to  that  passion,  but 
inspired  both  parents  with  another  expressly  to  that  end,  —  namely,  the  love  of  chil. 
dren  or  offspring.  It  is  the  ignorance  and  folly  of  men  that  would  enforce  upon  one 
of  these  impulses  of  our  nature  the  vicarious  performance  of  the  duties  of  the  other, 
thereby  introducing  confusion  between  them  and  marring  the  beauty  and  efficiency 
of  both. 

6.  "The  command  from  Sinai,"  etc.  I  do  not  propose  (unless  it  is  preferred 
to  shift  the  ground  of  our  discussion  from  the  philosophical  to  the  theological  arena) 
to  notice  arguments  drawn  from  the  religious  books  of  any  sect.  Christian,  Moham- 
medan, or  Pagan.  The  true  science  of  society  must  be  based  on  principles  as 
broad  as  humanity,  not  confined  to  persons  who  happen  to  think  alike  upon  some 
point  of  faith,  or  upon  the  authority  of  some  scripture.  The  physiological  effects 
of  marriage  and  generation  are  coming,  in  our  day,  to  be  as  well  understood  as 
other  matters  of  science;  and  if  the  Bible  seems  to  quarrel  with  physiology,  as  it 
has  seemed  to  do  with  astronomy  and  geolog}',  it  belongs  to  its  expounders  to  seek 
for  a  reconciliation  in  the  latter  case,  as  they  have  done  in  the  former.  For  one,  I 
am  tired  of  caviling  about  exegesis  and  textrreadings  while  humanity  lies  bound 
and  bleeding. 

7.  "Hence  the  State  honors  and  blesses  marriage,  and  frowns  upon  all  other 
sexual  relations," — that  is  to  say,  each  State  honors  and  blesses  some  sort  of  mar- 
riage relations,  and  frowns  upon  some  other  sort,  the  difference  in  different  ages 
and  nations  embracing  almost  every  conceivable  variety  which  could  come  of  the 
entire  freedom  of  individuals.  Since  States  are  left  free  to  vary  and  differ  as 
they  please,  and  do  vary  and  differ  accordingly,  why  not  extend  the  same  privilege 
to  the  individuals  of  the  same  State.  If  any  better  philosophical  reason  can  be 
given  against  it  than  mere  prejudice,  undevelopment,  and  superstition,  let  us  have 
it  at  once,  and  put  an  end  to  the  discussion. 

You  say  it  is  nonsense  to  talk  of  my  views  of  individual  sovereignty  as  a  modern 
discovery,  and  of  the  antagonist  views  as  moss-grown  with  antiquit}'.  You  con- 
ceive of  individual  sovereignty  as  being  synonymous  with  egotism  and  about  as  old 
as  sin.  All  this  simply  indicates  that  my  views  are  as  yet  so  modern  and  so 
novel  that  even  Mr.  Greeley  has  hitherto  attained  to  no  adequate  conception  of 


Lc/ve^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  69 

them.  Please  to  endeavor  to  underetaud,  then,  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  indivi- 
vidual  whicli  I  talk  about  is  the  sovereignty  of  every  individual;  that  it  teacheg 
me  and  every  one  who  accepts  it  the  most  scrupulous  deference  for  the  absolute 
freedom  of  every  human  being,  prohibiting  me  and  them  from  arrogating  any  con- 
trol or  government  over  others  (except  when  wu  have  to  assume  the  co«t  of  their 
actions,  as  in  the  case  of  children,  and  become  thereby  entitled  to  the  deciding 
power).  It  demands  of  mo  that  I  permit  every  man  and  every  woman  to  think, 
npeak,  and  do  whatsoever  seemeth  good  to  them  in  their  own  eyes,  laying  down  the 
least  shadow  of  claim  to  the  right  on  my  part  to  suppress  them,  either  directly  or 
through  the  power  of  the  State,  the  Church,  public  odiiuu,  or  otherwise,  —  only 
limited  by  the  line  that  they  do  not  throw  the  burdensome  consequences  of  their 
conduct  on  me,  and  that  they  leave  me  the  same  amount  of  freedom.  All  this  I 
hold  as  the  essential  principle  of  order  and  harmony,  and  growtli  in  jturity  and 
intelligence,  and  rational  happiness  among  men.  Please  to  inform  me  what  you 
discover  either  unlovably  egotistic  or  at  all  antique  in  this  doctrine?  Are  you 
able  to  illustrate  its  workings  by  quotations  from  ancient  history  so  profuse  as  you 
intimate? 

Probably  you  will  perceive  that  you  have  mistaken  the  assertion  of  one's  own 
sovereignty  over  others  (which  is  your  own  doctrine,  and  which  has  l>ocn  common 
enough  in  the  world)  for  a  doctrine  which  aflirms  and  sedulou-sly  tcuards  that  of 
all  other  men,  while  it  is  confessedly  so  egotistic  as  to  claim  the  right  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  himself.  So  long  as  it  rests  in  the  phase  of  mere  protest  against  en- 
croachment, it  is  just  as  egotistic,  it  is  true,  as  it  is  to  request  a  gentleman  to 
stand  on  his  own  toes  and  not  on  yours. 

Can  you  suppose  that  you  are  treating  my  doctrine  of  the  froe<lom  of  woman  and 
her  right  to  herself  with  any  fairness,  when  you  confound  it  with  the  i>olygamy 
which  has  existed  in  barbarous  countries,  and  which  is  the  entir.<  (oufiscation, 
not  of  one  woman,  as  among  us,  but  of  many  to  one  man? 

My  doctrine  is  simply  that  it  is  an  intolerable  impertinence  :ur  mo  to  tlirust 
myself  into  your  affairs  of  the  heart,  to  determine  for  you  what  woman  (or  women) 
you  love  well  enough  or  purely  enough  to  live  with,  or  how  many  you  are  capable 
of  loving.  I  demand  that  you  simply  let  me  alone  to  settle  the  most  intimate  and 
'lelicato  and  sacred  affairs  of  my  private  life  in  the  same  maimer.  You  publicly 
notify  mo  that  you  won't.  Another  generation  will  judge  between  us  as  to  the 
barbarism  and  the  culture  of  these  two  pasitions.  At  present  it  is  enough  to  uy 
that  my  course  leads  to  {x»aco  and  yours  to  war.     Judge  which  is  l>est. 

You  misconceive  a  little  my  method  of  getting  rid  of  murder.  I  have  the  SAme 
I»crsonal  prejudice  that  you  have  "to  l>eing  knocked  down  with  a  slung  shot,  or  a 
paving  stone,  dragged  up  a  blind  alley,  and  there  finished";  nor  do  I  hope  to  get 
rid  of  such  acts,  as  you  say  I  do,  ''by  simply  ceasing  to  Tisit  tliem  with  a  penalty, 
or  to  regard  them  as  criujes."  I  apply  that  reniedy  only  to  acts  which  are  no 
crimes  except  as  they  are  made  so  by  law. 


70  Love^  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

Still,  there  is  no  human  action  without  a  cause.  A  given  murder  is  not  a  solitary 
fact,  standing  in  the  midst  of  the  universe,  •without  antecedents  or  consequences. 
The  philosopher  looks  into  causes.  The  scientilic  reformer  would  apply  his  reme- 
dies there.  If  a  man  attempts  to  murder  me,  that  act  has  a  cause  :  perhaps  a  state 
of  feeling  on  his  part,  induced  by  the  suspicion  that  a  certain  woman  whom  he 
calls,  or  hopes  to  call,  his  wife,  has  experienced  a  magnetism  of  attraction,  over 
which  she  had  no  possible  control,  toward  me,  and  by  the  belief,  inculcated  by  you 
and  others,  that  that  woman  belongs,  not  to  herself,  but  to  him.  Hence  he  is  de- 
luded into  the  notion  that  I  have  inflicted  a  heinous  wrong  upon  him,  although, 
probably,  I  have  never  seen  him  in  my  life,  and  possibly  may  never  have  seen  the 
woman  either.  Looking  at  the  effect  alone,  as  I,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  man- 
kind, may  be  compelled  to  do  in  the  emergency,  the  remedy  may  be  to  knock  the 
man  on  the  head,  or  to  commit  him,  as  you  recommend,  to  Sing-Sing.  The  true 
remedy,  nevertheless,  is  a  public  sentiment,  based  on  the  recognition  of  the  sove- 
reignty of  the  individual.  Let  the  idea  be  completely  repudiated  from  the  man's 
mind  that  that  w^oman,  or  any  women,  could,  by  possibility,  belong  to  him,  or  was 
to  be  true  to  him,  or  owed  him  anything,  farther  than  as  she  might  choose  to  be- 
stow herself,  as  far  as  he  could  inspire  her  with  affection  and  no  farther;  and  from 
that  hour  the  sentiment  of  jealousy  dies  out,  and  the  motive  to  one  kind  of  murder 
is  removed. 

Perhaps,  in  another  case,  the  poor  wretch  was  born  with  a  mind  poisoned  from 
conception,  imbued,  as  the  lawyers  have  it,  with  "malice  toward  all  mankind,"  be- 
cause he  was  begotten  in  hatred  from  a  woman  forced  by  the  law  into  the  repulsive 
embraces  of  a  man  she  loathed,  and  so  "marked  "  as  a  monster,  in  every  lineament 
of  body  and  soul,  by  the  horrid  impression  to  which,  as  is  well  known,  the  suscep- 
tible imagination  of  a  mother  gives  form  in  the  character  of  her  offspring.  The 
evil  in  this  case  is  that  your  prospective  nmrderer  was  the  child  of  abhorrence  and 
despair.  The  remedy  is  to  restore  to  outraged  woman  the  right  to  choose  freely, 
at  all  times,  the  father  of  her  own  child.  Till  that  be  granted,  all  the  rest  of  your 
"Woman's  Rights"  are  not  worth  contending  for.  It  is  pitiable  to  see  the  advo- 
cal,es  of  this  ism  compelled  to  disguise  their  real  want,  fearing  to  utter  it,  and  to 
make  a  false  issue  about  the  franchise,  or  something  of  no  comparative  value  to 
them.  The  sovereignty  of  the  individual  is  what  they  do  demand,  in  common  with 
the  rest  of  mankind.  No  child  healthfully  and  lovingly  engendered,  and  never  subse- 
quently oppressed  and  outraged  by  false  social  relations,  will  ever  be  a  murderer.  Let 
the  world  learn  that. 

You  say  that  you  regard  "free  trade  as  neither  right  nor  wrong,  good  nor  bad, 
in  itself,  but  only  in  view  of  its  practical  issues."  Do  you  say  the  same  of  free- 
dom of  the  press,  or  freedom  of  conscience?  Louis  Napoleon  does  so  of  the 
former,  and  King  Bomba  and  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany  of  the  latter;  but  the 
public  have  got  the  idea  in  their  minds  that  there  is  somehow  a  difference, /unt/a- 


L(yve,  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  71 

mentally  and  in  principle,  between  your  social  views  and  those  of  Louia  Napoleon, 
Bomba,  and  the  Grand  Duke,  Perhaps  you  will  enlijj'hteu  us' as  to  what  that  dif- 
ference is.     As  matters  now  stand,  I  do  not  fMjrceive  it. 

I  regret  that  my  views  should  inspire  you  with  hypo<:hondria,  and  induce  you  to 
think  of  suicide,  emigration,  or  anything  desperate ;  but  I  i)r(*sume  you  do  not  urge 
these  "vapors"  as  an  argument.  I,  too,  have  my  personal  feelings  on  the  subject. 
How  far  will  you  consent  that  they  shall  be  made  the  criteria  for  deciding  the 
questions  mooted  between  us? 

Of  your  views  of  sexual  purity  I  cannot,  in  the  circumstances  under  which  I 
write,  utter  what  I  feel.  If  it  bo  not  too  severe  a  thing  to  say,  allow  me,  liowever, 
merely  to  say  that  we  all,  prol>ably,  give  the  measure  of  ourselves,  more  exactly 
than  in  any  other  possible  mode,  by  the  estimate  we  make  of  the  natural  results 
of  freedom.  Permit  me,  on  this  point,  to  substitute  for  what  I  might  have  said  an 
extract  from  a  communication  I  have  just  received,  suggested  by  j'our  remarks, 
from  a  noble  and  pure-minded  American  woman,  one  to  whom  the  world  owes 
more  than  to  any  other  man  or  woman,  living  or  dead,  for  thorough  investigation 
and  appreciation  of  the  causes  of  disease  and  the  laws  of  liealth,  especially  in  all 
that  concerns  the  sexual  relations  and  the  reproduction  of  the  race :  • 

It  is  the  God-appointed  mission  of  woman  to  teach  the  world  what  purity  is.  May  Mr. 
Greeley  bo  so  fortunate  as  to  learn  tho  lesson! 

The  woman  who  is  truly  (•nian(Mpate,  who  has  health,  in  tho  deep  significance  of  that  word, 
—  health  of  body  and  of  spirit,  —  who  believes  in  CJotl,  and  reverently  obeys  his  laws  in 
herself,  —  this  woman  is  pure  and  a  teacher  of  purity.  She  needs  no  human  law  for  the  pro- 
tection of  her  chastity;  virtue  is  to  her  something  more  than  a  name  and  a  rcRnlation, — 
something  far  other  than  a  legal  restriction.  It  is  high  .is  tho  sky  above  Mr.  Greeley's  lower 
law,  and  just  as  far  removed  from  all  license.  Such  a  woman  has  a  heaven-conferrod  right 
to  choose  tho  father  of  her  babe. 

We  say  man  has  tho  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursait  of  happinc^ ;  yet  he  abuses  lifo, 

•Tho  writer  of  this  commmiiaition  Is  Mrs.  Mary  S.  Govo  Nichols,  tho  wife  of  Dr.  Thomas  L. 
Nichols,  and  ajwoclato  iirincipul  witli  lilin  In  tho  Hydropathic  Iimtitution  iit  rortohestfr.  Now  York. 
Hud  tliLs  ri-ply  l>cen  pul)lLHht'il  in  tlio  "  Tril'une,"  I  should,  doubtlcM,  liiivc  nimliflod  tho  fuU>^iuu  con- 
tjiiiicd  in  the  wntciioe  to  whicli  tliis  iioto  is  appended,  when  I  come  to  see  it  in  the  proofs,  not  t>ccmaso 
it  does  not  expresH  riglitly  my  own  perstHml  opinion,  but  bivauso  it  do*'s  so,  |KTl>ai»»,  ruther  too  |>olnt- 
edly,  and  is  liiiMi-  ti>  lie  understtxHl  as  an  extr.ivapinco  of  in'rsonul  frirnd.ihip  rather  than  u  dehbcnita 
estimate  of  tho  eliunirler  and  position  of  an  IndiviJual.  As  my  reply  was  rojit-tetl,  I  fwl  bound  now 
to  publish  It  with  all  Its  hup<Tfection8  on  Its  hi-ad.  When,  however,  it  is  reniemliorrd  that  l>r. 
Nichols  publicly  avows  tliat,  after  exi>erienclng  tho  lK«nt'flt8  of  n  reguUiT  nietllcal  ctlueatlon  and  cxt«n- 
•iTo  profowlonal  reading,  his  rtal  Instruction  lu  physiolopry  and  theni|)catlcs  wasderlTinl  from  hi*  wife; 
and,  further,  tlmt  Dr.  Nichols  Is  tho  autlior  of  "IJM>terlc  Anthropology,"  a  work  many  years  In  «d- 
Tjuico  of  all  otlior  trt'utl!M'8npon  tho  heulthconiUtions  of  man,  and  which  is  I  '  ■  !v 

surpassed  by  tho  popular  WDrk  of  Mrs.  .St«)we,  my  cluin»'tert/j«tion  of  .Mn>  v- 

travagant.    She   Is  a  latly  who  couples  tho  most  womlerful   Intuitions— !>.'    ",.,.„...      -, of 

woman"  — with  a  truly  n.niu-iiline  strength  and  comprehension  of  general  principle*,  sacb  as  chap 
rmcterlres  tho  highest  order  of  s«ieiiiiiii-  miiid. 


72  hove^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

fulls  into  bondage,  and  seeks  and  does  not  find  bappinebs.  The  woman  who  chooses  tbe 
father  of  her  child  may  go  ajs  far  wrong.  The  failure  of  freedom  to  bring  wisdom  and  right 
action  at  once  is  no  argument  against  freedom.  Because  woman  has  not  equitable  and  at- 
tractive industry  and  adequate  remuneration,  and  cannot,  therefore,  appropriately  maintain 
tbe  babe  she  would  bear  and  love,  does  that  abrogate  her  right  to  bo  a  mother?  Did  not 
Go<l  make  her  to  bo  the  mother  of  the  race,  and  the  healthy  mother  of  healthy  children?  If 
she  is  fixed  in  indissoluble  marriage  with  a  man  she  must  abhor,  —  a  selfish,  sensual  tyrant, 
— who  makes  lier  bis  victim,  and  perpetrates  in  her  children  bis  lust  of  the  flesh  and  of  gain, 
and  all  the  deep  damnation  of  bis  nature,  must  woman  lie  prono  under  all  this,  suffering 
and  transmitting  the  disease  and  crime  which  are  its  ordained  product,  because  it  is  accord- 
ing to  law? 

Often  the  greatest  crime  a  man  can  commit  is  to  reproduce  himself,  though  it  be  done 
legally. 

"We  must  have  a  Maine  Law  and  capital  punishment  for  the  children  born  of  hate  in  indis- 
soluble marriage.  Hundreds  of  women  in  such  marriage  mnider  their  children  rather  tkan 
bear  them. 

Intemperance,  madness,  murder,  and  all  other  vices  are  hereditary.  Shall  indissoluble 
marriage  go  on,  year  after  year,  producing  so  many  thieves,  drunkards,  prostitutes,  and 
murderers,  and  in  preassignable  proportions,  —  so  mathematical  in  its  operation,  —  and  re- 
main unqnestioned  ?  Or  shall  it  be  honored  with  such  defenders  as  Mr.  Greeley,  who  white- 
wash it  with  legal  sanctity  in  our  legislatures,  and  plead,  through  the  public  press,  for 
Maine  Laws  to  restrain  and  punish  the  murderers,  and  seducers,  and  drunkards  born  in  its 
decent,  and  respectable,  and  legal  limits? 

There  is  a  large  and  increasing  class  of  women  in  our  land  who  know  what  purity  is. 
They  know,  also,  what  it  is  not.  They  know  that  is  is  not  an  exhausted  nervous  system, 
which  prompts  to  no  union,  —  which  enables  them  to  walk  quietly  in  the  common  thorough- 
fare of  custom.  They  know,  also,  that  it  is  not  fidelity  to  a  legal  bond,  where  there  is  no 
love,  —  where  there  is  force  on  one  side  and  fear  on  the  other, — where  rascals  are  born  by 
immutable  God's  law,  and  where  diseases  are  engendered  that  make  the  grave  an  earnestly 
coveted  refuge  from  "lawful"  whoredom. 

Could  any  woman,  worthy  the  name,  —  any  other  than  a  legal  slave, — choose  to  bear 
worse  children  than  those  we  hang  out  of  our  way,  — than  those  who  become  seducers  out  of 
marriage  and  destroyers  in  it? 

In  the  Medical  College  at  Albany  there  is  an  exposition  of  indissoluble  marriage,  which 
should  be  studied  by  all  those  who  beg  in  to  see  that  a  legalized  union  may  be  a  most  impure, 
unholy,  and,  consequently,  unhealthy  thing.  In  glass  vases,  ranged  in  a  large  cabinet  in 
this  medical  museum,  are  uterine  tumors,  weighing  from  half  a  pound  to  twenty-four 
pounds.  A  viscus  that  in  its  ordinary  state  weighs  a  few  ounces  is  brought,  by  the  dis- 
ease caused  by  amative  excess,  —in  other  words,  licentiousness  and  impurity,  —  to  weigh 
more  than  twenty  pounds.  Be  it  remembered,  these  monstrosities  were  produced  in  lawful 
and  indissoluble  wedlock.  The  wives  and  mothers  who  perished  of  these  evils,  and  left  this 
terrible  lesson  to  the  world,  knew  only  of  legal  purity.  They  lived  in  obedience  to  the  law 
of  marriage,  —  pious,  virtuous,  reputable,  ignorant  women.  God  grant  that  their  suffering 
be  not  in  vain !  God  grant  that  they  may  be  the  teachers  of  purity,  who,  being  dead,  yet 
speak  I 

In  an  age  hardly  past,  "  Honor  God  and  the  King  "  was  the  great  commandment.  In  this 
age,  "  Honor  God  and  a  Husband  "  liolds  the  same  place.  Men  have  learned  that  the  first 
contains  a  solecism ;  women  are  learning  the  same  lesson  of  the  last. 


Love^  Marriufje^  and  Divorce.  73 

Such,  sir,  is  the  eloquent,  and,  in  my  judgment,  the  unanswerable,  protest  of  one 
woman  against  your  doctrine.  In  five  years  more,  tlie  voice  of  tliat  woman  will  be 
the  voice  of  thousands.  You  are  quite  right  when  you  hound  the  alarm,  and  an- 
nounce that  the  time  for  the  full  discussion  of  this  whole  subject  ha-s  arrived. 
That  discussion  will  be  liad,  whether  conservatism  will  or  no.  If  what  Ls  can 
stand  that  test — let  it;  if  not — not. 

STICi'IiEN  1'kAHL  A.NUKEWS. 


74  LovCs  Marriatjc,  and  Divorce. 


XI. 
Mil.  Andrews's  reply  to  mr.  james. 

[Rejectfil  by  the  Tribuuo.] 

To  the  Editor  of  The  New  York  Tribune. 

Mr.  II.  Jaiues  condesceuds  to  reply,  obliquely  still,  to  my  strictures  upon  his 
crude  social  theories.  The  condescension  is  amiable,  but  the  imprudence  is  un- 
pardonable. It  was  obviously  one  of  those  cases  in  which  discretion  is  the  better 
l>art  of  valor.  He  does  not  appreciate  my  disposition  "not  to  be  cruel."'  Such 
injjratitude  provokes  a  severity  which  he  can  ill  afforil  to  draw  upon  himself.  1 
am  surprised  —  I  may  even  say  grieved  —  that  he  compels  me  to  a  still  further  ex- 
posure of  the  unhandsome  featmes  of  his  couise  of  reasoning  upon  the  subject  in 
debate.  With  an  apology  to  the  reader  for  a  thorouglmess  of  criticism  bordering 
on  liarshness,  forced  on  me  by  the  indiscretion  of  "Your  Correspondent,"  I  will 
proceed,  as  cautiously  as  I  can,  and,  even,  notwithstanding  all,  with  some  remain- 
ing touches  of  tenderness,  to  the  dissection  of  "  Your  Correspondent's"  last  article. 

The  following  is  the  gist  of  his  effort  to  restate  himself: 

You  feel  tbat  all  man's  relations  to  his  fellows,  and  especially  to  woman,  should  he  bap- 
tized from  above,  or  ackuowled<;o  an  ideal  sanction  before  all  tbinf^s,  and  that  where  this 
sanction  is  absent,  consequently,  the  relation  is  either  strictly  infantile  or  else  inhuman. 
In  respect  to  this  higher  sanction  and  bond  of  conju^^al  lidelity,  you  call  the  legal  bond  infe- 
rior or  base.  As  serving  and  promoting  the  former,  one  deems  the  latter  excellent  and 
honorable ;  but  as  ceasing  any  longer  to  do  so,  you  deem  it  low  and  bestial. 

Now,  the  deliberate  purpo.se  of  your  Correspondent  here  is  to  show  that  lie  is 
not,  and  could  not  have  been,  adverse  to  the  institution  of  marriage,  because,  for- 
sooth, as  he  has  "all  along  contended,"  there  are  circumstances  in  which  that  in- 
stitution is  of  value  to  society,  —  namely,  in  its  infancy,  —  and  to  impress  upon  the 
incautious  reader  the  idea  that  /  am  laboring  under  a  woful  degree  of  mental  con- 
fusion in  attributing  to  him  the  doctrine  that  marriage  (the  legal  bond)  should  be 
"incontinently  abolished." 

Very  good,  so  far;  but  it  so  happens  that  your  Correspondent  has  very  recently 
devoted  large  space,  in  more  than  one  of  his  communications  to  the  "Tribune,"  to 
proving  that  society  among  us  is  no  longer  in  that  state  of  infancy  in  which  the 
outward  marriage  bond  is  "subservient  and  ministerial  to  the  higher  spijitual 


Love.,  Marriage,  and  iJivorce.  75 

sanction,"  but  tLut  it  has  now  arrived,  on  the  contrary,  at  that  pr«ciM  stage  of 
advano-iiK-nt  and  full  growth  in  which  the  legal  bond  is  "inf'Tior  and  Ijase,"  or 
"inhuman,"  or  "low  and  bestial,"  or  "purely  diabolical,"  and  ought,  t'h.r.  fen-,  t<» 
be  dispensed  with  or  wholly  abolished. 

Ijci  us  l)etake  ourselves  again  to  quotation.  Discussing  this  verj-  hui.j.tl,  uh-i 
having  Hhown  that  the  legal  bond  tc(u  a  nece.Hsity  of  the  infant  Htat<>  of  human 
society,  y«)ur  Corre.spon<K'nt  prcMvedi-d  to  .say  :  "But  now  that  it  [«<  -rrr- 

leapftl  that  {MMiod  of  infantile  fratjU it y,  and  feels  the  motions  of  i\  ''«?«rjf 

man/ioofl,  the  questions  of  order  and  harmony  can  l>e  no  longer  pDs(|ioned.  It  u 
bound  by  a  feeling  of  self-respect  to  become  decorous  and  orderly,  and  lu  put  away, 
consequently,  all  those  arbitrary  methwts  of  action  which  were  dictated  by  mere  expe- 
diency or  self-prf'servation."  Ilcnce,  your  Cor  •  the 
changes  in  legislation  requisite  to  adapt  it  to  tii'  -voci- 
ety,  to  stand  in  "fully  legitimating  <livorce,"  or  in  discharging  our  conjugal  reh^- 
tions  of  the  "purely  diabolic  element  of  outward  force,"  —  in  other  words,  the 
virtual  abolition  of  legal  or  forceful  marriage,  as  "ceasing  any  longer  to  serve  and 
promote  the  higher  sanction  an«l  lK)nd  of  fidelity," — having,  "for  hi.>»  own  jjart," 
as  he  says,  "not  the  slightest  doubt  that,  in  that  case,  constancy  would  si>cfdily 
avouch  itself  the  law  of  the  cunjuyal  relation,  instead  of,  as  now,  the  rare  exception." 

Now,  your  Correspondent  has  rejH'ateilly  brought  forward  and  urged,  as  you 
well  know,  and  as  the  public  well  knows,  this  precise  remedy  for  the  exUting  diA- 
consonanco  of  society  and  its  legislation,  as  a  practical  cure  for  a  practical  eriL 
Now,  then,  he  says,  with  an  exclamation  iK)int  for  surprise,  that  /  Ix^tray  so  crude 
an  apprehension  of  the  discussion  that  I  confound  his  "drnu-  ■  f-fu<  antl 

unworthy  motives  in  marriar/e   with   a  denunciation   of   marrt.i  What 

charming  simplicity  t  what  dflightful  innocence  I  A  practical,  straightforward, 
political,  or  legislative  measure,  of  the  most  radical  and  revolutionary  kind,  pro- 
posed and  rep*'atedly  urged  as  the  remedy  for  wid«vspri'atl  actual  sufTering  and 
disorder  in  the  community,  suddenly  retires  into  the  dimensions  of  a  .  '  mon- 

strance, from  a  kind-hearte<l  sj>iritual  adviser,  against  bad  motives  ;;  .nyl 

Ah!  Mr.  Ib'nry  James,  when  hanl  pressed  by  a  logic  that  won't  Ih-uJ  to  "ludiri- 
dual  Sovereignty,"  an  "artful  dodge"  nniy  l>e  highly  rre«litablo  to  one's  agility, 
but  hardly  to  the  higher  attributes  of  a  manly  nature.  Were  it  not  for  Uio  cun- 
ning evinced  in  the  mana'uvre,  the  want  of  courage  and  the  S4><<ming  simplicity 
might  l>e  suggentivo  of  "shet'p's  hca«l"  without  "the  pluck."  As  it  i-*,  we  nrv  rt»- 
minded,  also,  of  a  different  animal.  Kor  myself,  I  once  had  a  goo<l  prnotico  in 
Virginia  fox-hunting,  and  training  after  th*-s<>  doubliuKH  has  t<i  me  the  intenrst  of 
reviving  old  reminiscences:  to  the  n-ader  who  funis  no  such  aniuwnient  in  the 
chase,  and  who  looks  merely  for  candor,  truth-seeking,  and  roKHi-l.-H'^  "  •»  .l.-^-ii*. 
sion,  I  fear  they  may  l>e  simply  «lisgusling. 

If,  in  the  case  adduced  fur  illustration,  the  "Spiritual  Advisor"  h.t-!       :.    .i  >!' -p 


76  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

farther,  and  expressly  advocated  the  theory  that  "all  arbitrary  methods  of  action," 
in  the  premises,  should  be  "put  away,"  that  nobody  should  be  compelled,  by  "out- 
ward force,"  to  restore  property  which  he  hud  fouud,  and  that,  by  such  freedom 
from  the  "legal  boud,"  the  notion  of  the  right  of  property  would  be  "ennobled,** 
and  the  man  and  all  men  led  to  act,  from  their  own  "humanity  and  inward  sweet- 
ness," honorably  and  honestly  in  such  cases;  and  if  I,  upon  reading  such  a  state- 
ment of  views,  should  have  said,  perchance,  that  that  is  precisely  my  theory  for 
the  abolition  of  all  laws  for  the  collection  of  debts  and  the  like,  — saving  the  ques- 
tion, to  be  settled  afterward,  w'hat  are  legitimate  debts  bearing  upon  the  con- 
science; and  if  Mr.  Spiritual  Adviser,  shrinking  from  the  more  open  and  bolder 
presentation  of  his  own  theory,  and  determined  to  be  respectable  at  all  hazards, 
should,  thereupon,  accuse  me  of  confusion  of  ideas,  superficiality,  etc., — your  Cor- 
respondent wants  to  know  what  1  should  say ;  and  I  reply  that  I  should  say  that 
this  "Spiritual  Adviser,"  intent  upon  saving  his  own  skin,  did  not  hesitate  to 
slander  and  malign  his  neighbor,  and  to  obfuscate  his  readers  by  a  resort  to  trick- 
ery and  ad  captandum  pleadings  imworthy  of  a  man  of  some  reputation  and  literary 
pretensions. 

So  much  for  dodge  No.  1.  Before  proceeding  with  the  catalogue,  permit  me  to 
furnish  a  gloss  to  the  reader,  to  inform  him  of  what  I  suppose  the  real  position  of 
your  Correspondent  to  be.  1  do  this  to  remove  the  impression,  to  which  I  feel 
myself  liable,  after  the  showing  I  have  made,  of  engaging  with  a  combatant  whose 
statements  of  doctrine  are  too  contradictory  and  absurd  to  aspire  to  the  dignity  of 
criticism.  Notwithstanding  appearances,  I  do  not  think  so.  There  is,  I  am  satis- 
fied, a  consecutive  train  of  idea  running  through  the  whole  of  his  reasonings  upon 
the  subject,  which,  if  it  can  be  cleared  of  a  certain  coufusedness  in  the  use  of 
terms  by  which  he  is  constantly  prone  to  obscure,  rather  than  illustrate,  his 
thought,  will  be  found  quite  as  consistent  as  the  notions  of  many  other  loose 
thinkers,  w^ho  aspire  to  instruct  the  public  upon  philosophical  subjects,  and  who 
gain  considerable  estimation  for  the  want  of  just  criticism. 

What  your  Correspondent  means  to  say,  then,  rendered  into  a  comprehensible 
plainness  of  speech  and  tolerable  brevity,  is  just  this.  Marriage  is  the  union  of 
one  man  and  one  woman  for  life.  But  there  are  two  phases  or  aspects  of  marriage, 
or,  in  fine,  two  marriages,  or  kinds  of  marriage.  1.  The  outward  or  legal,  that  of 
which  the  perpetuity  and  exclusiveuess  depend  upon  human  laws  and  are  enforced 
by  the  courts,  which  I  will  call  legal  marriage;  and,  2.  That  which  he  calls  "the 
ideal  sanction  of  the  conjugal  relation,"  and  which  1  will  call,  for  the  sake  of  a 
convenient  term,  spiritual  marriage.  This  last,  he  believes,  tends  to  exhibit  itself, 
in  the  lives  of  all  rightly  developed  men  and  women,  in  just  the  same  form  of  per- 
petuity and  exclusiveuess  which  legal  marriage  now  attempts  to  enforce  by  vu'tue 
of  pains  and  penalties;  that  we  have  now  arrived  at  that  stage  of  development  at 
which  this  tendency  to  the  spiritual  tie  declares  itself  so  strongly  (or  exists  unde- 


I 


Love^  Marriage,  and  Divorce.  77 

clared)  that  the  continuance  of  the  old  legal  boml,  which  was  good  enough  in  its 
day,  instead  of  securing  the  action  toward  which  it  and  the  "higher  sanction" 
both  tend,  operates  as  an  irritant  and  a  disturber,  and  hinders  or  prevents  the  very 
end  at  which  it  aims;  that,  consequently,  sound  morals  and  good  policy  both  de- 
mand, as  the  remedy,  that  "divorce  be  freely  legitimated,"  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  legal  marriage  abolished;  not  that  ho  is  opposed  to  marriage, — that  is,  to 
the  same  course  of  life  which  legal  marriage  enacts  in  the  form  of  law,  —  but  be- 
cause this  last  is  not  merely  imnecessary  but  hurtful  in  securing  that  end. 

This  thf'or}',  so  stated,  comes  pretty  much  to  what  is  entertained  in  this  age, 
more  or  less  distinctly,  by  a  good  many  persons  transcendentally  inclined,  and 
■whose  views  of  prospective  human  improvement  take  no  broader  and  no  more 
practical  shape  than  that  of  spiritualizing  whatsoever  thing,  however  stupid,  which 
happens  now  to  exist  among  us.  Finding  an  existing  relation  so  oppressive  that 
neither  they  nor  their  fathers  were  able  to  bear  the  actual  yoke,  they  fancy  that 
exactly  the  same  thing  up i ritualized  must  be  exactly  the  right  thing.  Still  the  the- 
ory, such  as  it  is,  is  quite  intelligible  when  not  "  bedeviled  "  by  unnecessary  fog 
and  pretentious  mysticism. 

It  is  true  your  Correspondent  has  no  right  to  claim  any  such  sensible  rendering 
of  his  views.  He  has  pertinaciously  insisted  upon  saying  that  "the  legal  bond" 
is  the  whole  of  marriage,  that  the  spiritual  tie  is  not  marriage  at  all,  and  that  the 
legal  bond  ought  now  to  be  dispensed  with.  I  should,  therefore,  have  been  per- 
fectly justified,  upon  ordinary  views  of  criticism,  if  I  had  taken  him  for  what  he 
has  repeatedly  declared  himself  in  effect  to  be,  in  words,  and  stated  purely  and 
simply  that  he  denounces  the  institution  of  marriage  entirely.  I  have  nevertheless 
kindly,  as  I  thought,  abstained  from  taking  advantage  of  this  verbal  confusion, 
and  inasmuch  as  he  refers  to  "the  higher  sanction  of  the  conjugal  tie,"  and  u.ses 
other  similar  phrases,  although  denying  that  they  signify  marriage  in  any  sense, 
I  have  confined  myself  to  speaking  of  him  as  opposed  to  legal  marriage.  To  talk 
of  the  law  as  sanctioning  what  will  exist  just  as  well  without  it,  and  what  is  not 
to  continue  to  exist  by  virtue  of  it,  is  nonsense.  The  mere  ceremony,  having  no 
binding  effect,  is  nothing  to  which  you  or  your  Correspondent,  or  I,  or  anybody, 
would  attach  the  slightest  importance. 

As  I  happen  to  think,  myself,  that  forcing  two  people  who  hate  each  other  to 
live  together  in  the  most  intimate  relation,  and  become  monks  or  beget  children 
of  their  hatred,  is  neither  very  philosophical  nor  religious,  I  was  quite  disposed  to 
"fraternize"  with  your  Correspondent  up  to  that  point.  This,  alas!  was  the  head 
and  front  of  my  offending.  It  was  not  that  I  differed  from,  but  that  I  agreed 
with  him,  and  put  in  a  little  clearer  and  stronger  light  the  points  of  our  agreement, 
that  he  was  horrified  and  alarmed,  and  recoiled. 

Our  points  of  difference  lie  here.  He,  "for  his  part,"  has  no  doubt  that  "con- 
stancy would  speedily  avouch  itself  as  the  laio  of  the  conjugal  relation,  in  the  ab- 


78  LovCy  Marriage.^  and  Divorce. 

sence  of  all  legislation  to  enforce  it."  I,  for  my  piirt,  don't  know  that.  We  have 
never  vet  witnesseil  a  state  of  society  consisting  of  i-ducateil,  refined,  and  well- 
developed  persons,  in  which  freedom  of  the  affections,  for  both  men  and  women, 
was  tolerated  and  approved.  I  am  unable  to  dogmatize  with  reference  to  the  pre- 
cise nature  of  the  relations  which  would  come  to  prevail  under  such  a  regime.  I 
know  simply  that  it  is  the  right  thing,  and  that  its  results  must  therefore  be  good, 
however  much  they  may  differ  from  my  preconceived  notions  of  propriety.  I  de- 
cline to  make  myself  the  standard:  I  recognize  the  equal  sovereignty  of  all  other 
men,  and  of  all  women.  I  do  not  antl  cannot  know  the  nature  of  any  other  man  or 
woman,  so  as  to  be  competent  to  decide  for  them.  I  doubt  not  I  shall  do  my  duty 
if  I  obey  the  highest  thing  which  I  find  in  my  own  being.  I  claim  the  right  to  do 
that.  I  allow  the  same  right  to  all  others.  It  is  a  species  of  spiritual  arrogance 
for  me  to  assume  to  decide  for  them,  which  I  voluntarily  lay  down  and  totally 
abjure. 

Mr.  James  claims  freedom  because,  for  his  part,  he  believes  that  freedom  will 
lead  people  to  act  just  in  that  way  which  he  personally  thinks  to  be  right.  I,  on 
the  contrary',  claim  freedom  for  all  men  and  all  women  for  no  such  personal  reason, 
but  because  they  have  an  inalienable  God-given  right,  high  as  heaven  above  all 
human  legislation,  to  judge  for  themselves  what  it  is  moral,  and  proper,  and  right 
for  them  to  do  or  abstain  from  doing,  so  long  as  they  do  not  cast  the  burdens  of 
their  conduct  on  me.  I  plant  myself  on  that  principle,  and  challenge  the  attention 
of  mankind  to  it  as  the  law  of  order,  and  harmony,  and  elevation,  and  purity 
among  men.  Herein  we  do  radically  differ.  I  take  the  position  which,  saving 
the  judgment  of  my  critics,  is  exceedingly  new  in  the  world,  that  I  have  no  better 
right  to  determine  what  it  is  moral  or  proper  for  you  to  do  *  than  I  have  to  deter- 
mine what  it  is  religious  for  you  to  believe;  and  that,  consequently,  for  me  to  aid 
in  sending  you  or  another  man  to  prison  for  fornication,  or  bigamy,  or  polygamy, 
or  a  woman  for  wearing  male  attire,  and  the  like,  is  just  as  gross  an  outrage  in 
kind,  upon  human  rights,  as  it  would  be  to  aid  in  burning  you  at  Sraithiield  for 
Protestantism  or  Papacy,  or  at  Geneva  for  discarding  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity. 

But  to  return  to  your  Correspondent.  lie  bases  his  defence  of  freedom  upon  his 
personal  judgment  of  the  form  it  will  give  to  the  sexual  relations.  To  test  the 
depth  and  sincerity  of  his  convictions,  I  ask  him  a  question.  I  assume  that  we 
differ  as  regards  what  is  the  truest  state  of  the  relations  of  the  sexes,  and  call  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  people  do  differ,  upon  all  subjects,  in  virtue  of  their  in- 
finite individualities.  I  suppose  the  case  that  in  the  use  of  our  new-fledged  free- 
dom I  act  on  my  convictions,  not  his,  and  change  my  relations  every  week  or  month, 
or  take  an  unusual  number  of  conjugal  partners,  or  in  some  way  depart  from  his 
ideal.     I  ask,  in  very  good  faith,  and  as  a  practical  thing,  since  this  freedom  is  to 

*  With  the  limitation  just  stated,  of  conrse,  that  yon  do  not  tlirow  burdcnsomo  conseqnenccs  on  me. 


IjUVCi,    ^fiirrin/jc^   and   Dirorrr.  79 

be  a  matter  of  practical  legislation,  whether  he  propo8f.>>i,  or  not,  etill  to  retain  a 
police  ofhce  to  compel  ni«  to  us>'  /rf^ttuin .'  accor<liii^j  to  hi.'*  i«lfa  of  the  way  in  which 
it  kIiouM  1)6  used,  —  if  not  his,  whether  according  to  any  body 'a  standard,  other 
than  that  of  the  iixlividual  iiinisclf.  Hereupon  he  aiisunies  the  air  of  a  dignified 
aristocratic  "indifference,"  and  ri-.;ard.4  my  question  an  trivial,  dlHingenuoujt,  and 
imfwrtinent.  Of  course  the  judicious  reader  will  |kerceivo  at  once  that  it  Btrikeii 
home  to  the  very  vitals  of  his  whol»5  systi-in  <f  iei,'islativi»  reform,  ami  drives  him 
lia<k  to  a  sphere  to  which  it  is  to  !>«•  Impfd  ho  may  find  liis  al>ilities  l>etter  atlapted, 
—  that  of  spiritual  adviser  to  bad  husbands,  and  a  general  lecturer  of  fanatics  on 
the  amendment  of  their  "disorderly  niflhuds  of  living." 

The  next  point  of  your  Correspondent  is  either  Dodgo  No.  2  or  a  gross  blunder. 
The  reader  shall  judge  which.  It  is  a  perversion  of  my  doctrine  of  the  soven-ignty 
of  the  individual,  and  it  seems  to  me  a  deliberate  pt'rversion,  by  your  Correwpon- 
flent,  in  order  to  have  Wfore  him  a  man  of  straw,  that  he  could  knock  down.  Our 
fonimla  is,  "The  Sovereignty  of  every  Individual,  to  be  exercised  at  his  own  cost." 
This  simply  and  obviously  means,  "to  he  exercised,  not  at  the  cost  of  other  peo- 
ple," or,  as  we  have  constantly  and  repeatedly  explained  it,  "  to  ho  so  exercise*!  as 
not  to  throw  the  burdensome  consequences  of  one's  actions  upon  others,"  precisely 
its  religious  freedom  is  and  has  InKin  for  years  under.st<><Ml  among  us.  A  man  may 
l>elieve  what  he  pleases,  and  do,  in  the  tray  of  worship,  whatsoever  wise  or  foolish 
thing,  provided  he  assails  nobody  else's  lil>erty,  or  life,  or  proj>erty. 

This  simple  doctrine,  the  mere  extension  to  morals  and  other  spheres  of  a  prin- 
ciple already  adopted,  and  to  the  partial  operation  of  which  the  world  owes  trea- 
sures of  harmony  and  happiness,  your  sagacious  and  veracious  Corres|Hindeiit  has 
converted  into  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  commit  every  species  of  encroachment 
and  outrage  that  savages  or  ilevils  could  aspire  to,  provided  one  is  only  readv  to 
take  the  consequences.  This  atrocious  doctrine  he  has,  by  the  use  of  false  quota- 
tion mark.s,  thrust  into  my  mouth  t  Of  course,  attributing  such  nonsense  and  pro- 
fligacy to  me,  he  has  the  field  to  himself,  to  make  the  most  glaring  exhibition  of 
his  own  absurdity.  I  hope  he  enjoyed  the  pyrotechnic  display  of  his  own  witti- 
cisms, as  some  compensation  for  the  wear  and  tear  of  conscience  involved  in  such 
a  gross  misrepresentation  of  an  opinnnMit's  position,  if  it  were  really  intentional; 
if  it  were  a  blunder  merely,  and  he  luus  honestly  stated  the  principle,  "as  well  as 
be  can  master  its  contents,"  1  hardly  know  whether  to  recommend  to  him  so  much 
exertion  as  to  try  again.  There  is  certainly  little  wisdom  in  attempting  publicly 
to  pass  off  a  mere  condens«'d  expression  of  foolishness  and  diabolism  as  if  it  were 
the  substance  of  an  axiom  which  ohallciiges  the  admiration  of  mankind  h-h  the  most 
exact  and  the  most  scientific  solution  ever  to  l»o  attained  of  the  gri'at  problem  of 
the  legitimate  limit  of  human  fre<-dom. 

I  quite  regret  that  your  Corresix)ndent  should  l>e  oppressed  by  my  patronage,  but 
I  really  can't  help  it.     I  must  l>e  pi*nnitted  to  admire  what  therv  is  good  and  true 


80  Xorc,  Ma'Trlage^  and  Divorce. 

in  every  man's  utterances.  I  find  much  of  that  sort  in  what  ho  has  given  to  tho 
world,  and  I  admire  it.  I  oven  wish  tliat  T  found  nion-  of  it,  and  more  especially 
of  that  intellectual  and  moral  hardihood  which  would  perceive  the  extension  by 
implication  of  the  truth  he  does  utter,  and  stand  by  the  defence  of  it  with  a  little 
generous  devotion  and  occasional  forgetfulness  of  purely  personal  considerations. 

A  word  now  as  respects  ray  "small  insolences."  I  assure  your  Correspondent 
they  are  merely  "put  on"  upon  the  principle  similia  similibus,  and  small  doses,  to 
cure  his  big  ones.  I  shall  gladly  lay  them  aside  whenever  good  manners  begin  to 
prevail.  I  think  I  shall  be  found  competent  to  the  interchange  of  gentlemanly 
courtesies  when  gentlemanly  courtesies  are  in  demand.  Indeed,  I  decididly  prefer 
the  atmosphere  of  the  parlor  to  that  of  the  "  ring,"  but  I  endeavor,  at  the  same 
time,  to  adapt  myself  to  the  nature  of  circumstances  and  of  men. 

Your  Correspondent  presumes  that,  when  he  says  freedom  is  one  with  order,  / 
should  greatly  like  him  to  add,  "and  order  is  one  with  license."  When  license  is 
used  for  something  different  from  freedom,  I  suppose  it  signifies  the  bad  use  of 
freedom.  Now,  it  is  simply  freedom  that  I  ask  for.  On  what  grounds  does  this 
Correspondent  of  yours  dare  to  presume  that  I  desire  a  bad  use  to  be  made  of  that 
freedom,  or  that  I  am,  in  any  sense,  even  his  own,  a  profligate  or  a  bad  man;  that 
I  contemplate,  with  complacency,  the  making  of  a  hell  or  a  pandemonium,  or  that 
any  such  result  is  more  likely  to  come  of  my  freedom,  or  the  freedom  that  I  advocate, 
than  of  his  freedom,  or  the  freedom  he  advocates?  Whose  insolence  is  it  now? 
Why,  sir,  your  Correspondent  seems  to  me  so  bred  to  the  usage  of  overbearing 
superciliousness  that  he  ought  to  be  grateful  to  me  for  life  if  I  cure  him  of  his 
habit.  This  charge  of  advocating  license  has  always  been  repeated  against  the 
champions  of  every  species  of  freedom,  political,  of  the  press,  and  of  every  sort 
whatsoever,  and  it  is  time  that  it  should  get  its  rebuke.  It  has  not,  however,  sup- 
pressed other  men's  truth,  and  it  will  not  suppress  mine.  Such  truth  has  a  vitality 
in  it  which  survives  the  blunders  of  the  stupid,  the  misapprehensions  of  the  feeble- 
minded, the  denunciations  of  the  bigoted,  and  the  alarm  and  croaking  of  honest 
but  timorous  friends.  The  brave  and  the  faithful  lovers  of  such  truth  have  always 
been,  at  the  inception  of  its  promulgation,  a  "handful  of  ridiculous  fanatics"  in 
the  estimation  of  the  sophists  of  their  day.  It  matters  not.  Truth,  no  more  than 
the  rights  of  man,  can  be  obliterated  by  the  votes  of  a  majority,  the  legislation  of 
the  State,  nor  the  scorn  of  the  Pharisee ;  and  the  viper  that  tries  it  always  bites  a 
file. 

In  the  next  place,  your  Correspondent  deems  me  superficial,  because  I  deno- 
minate the  State  "a  mob."  He  doesn't  condescend  to  tell  us  what  it  is  other  than 
a  mob,  but  proceeds  immediately  to  define  Society,  as  if  that  were  synonymous  with 
the  State.  I  fancy  that  I  have  simply  analyzed  to  the  bottom  what  he  has  taken 
on  trust  and  in  the  gross.  He  admits  that,  '^irresponsible  governments  are  entitled  to 
our  contempt."     I  stand  ready  to  make  good  the  proposition  that  all  governments 


LovCy  Marriarje,  and  Divorce.  81 

are,  in  their  very  essence,  "irresponsible,"  just  so  far  as  they  are  goTernmenta  at 
all,  and  that,  practically,  they  havu  proved  so  in  every  exi>erinn'nt  ev*-r  mad«?  by 
mankind.  The  whole  American  theory  of  "checks  and  halancfs"  ujion  parchnjent 
is  mere  fallaciousness  and  folly.  The  only  effectual  check  is  that  developed  indi- 
viduality of  the  people  which  gives  significant  notice  to  govorument  that  it  won't 
answer  to  go  too  far,  and  which,  as  it  becomes  more  develoix'd,  w  sure  to  dispense 
with  government  altogether.  The  advantat,'es  which  w«  enjoy  in  this  country,  in 
this  respect,  come  entirely  from  the  greater  practical  <levelopment  of  the  jmve- 
reignty  of  the  individual;  from  the  greater  development  of  the  individual,  «o  that 
that  exercise  of  sovereignty  can  be  endurerl  with  less  evil  result;  and  froju  the 
small  quantity  of  government  which  we  tolerate,  not  at  all,  as  is  supposed,  from 
any  suiwriority  in  the  quality  of  the  article,  flovernmerjt  will  l»ecome  unneccjwary 
just  so  soon  a.s  the  true  principles  of  the  science  of  society  are  understtxMl  and  prac- 
tically realized.  The  realiwition  of  those  principles  will  l>egin  in  their  l>eing  dis- 
covered and  promulgate<|.  Hence,  as  occasion  offer.-*,  I  preach.  I  exjiect,  at  first, 
to  be  partially  understood,  misunderstoo<I,  and  misrepresented;  but  the  time  cf 
that  nebulous  perception  of  the  subject  will  pass.  Ideas  which  are  true  and  fun- 
damental, and  as  destitute  of  fluctuation  or  exception  lus  mathematics,  will  make 
their  way  and  be  accepted.  Prejudice  will  give  way  to  reason,  arbitrary  institu- 
tions to  principles,  and  antagonism  to  true  order  and  harmony,  and  the  freedom  of 
a  rightly-constituted  human  brotherhood. 

Your  Correspondent  says  that  I  exhibit  a  sovereign  contempt  for  society.  lie  is 
certainly  mistaken.  I  am  very  fond  of  society,  and  esjiecially  of  good  society. 
Society  is,  however,  a  word  of  considerable  diversity  of  significations,  and  is  used 
by  your  Correspondent  in  at  lea.st  three  or  four  different  senses,  apparently  with- 
out the  slightest  consciousness  of  confounding  them. 

I  may  as  well  use  this  word  [society]  as  any  other  to  illustrate  a  certain  tendency 
on  the  part  of  your  Correspondent,  to  which  I  have  already  adverted,  to  a  lament- 
able confusion  of  ideas  and  terms,  in  the  midst  of  the  most  exuljerant  and  pome- 
times  elegant  diction.  He  begins  one  of  his  paragraph.-'  by  using  siKtrty  as  if  it 
were  synonymous  with  the  Stale,  by  which  I  presume  he  means  the  or^ani/uition 
and  machinery  of  government.  In  the  middle  of  the  same  piiragraph  he  delines 
society  to  bo  "the  sentiment  of  fellowship  and  eqijality  in  the  human  l»o»om."  In 
the  end  of  the  same  paragraph  he  a.sserts  that  the  "advanc«>  of  .tociel^  —  this  senti- 
ment of  fellowship  or  equality  — causes  man  to  hxik  away  from  govenmienta,  and 
from  whatso«.>ver  external  patron.i'^e,  and  find  true  help  at  last  in  him.-^-lf ";  that 
is,  to  resort  to  the  sovereiijutii  nf  thf  imliri/lual.  This  bust  is  pn'oi.Mdy  what  I  Iwlicre, 
I'or  society  in  which  of  thes*  senses  is  it  that  I  exhibit  a  "sovereign  contempt**? 
Whoso  superficiality  is  it  now? 

In  the  very  next  sentence  your  Corn>siH)ndent  adds,  **$oriel^  is  the  sole  bene- 
iK-iar}'  of  the  art«  and  sciences,  and  the  individual  man  beconiee  partaker  of  their 


82  Love,  3f(i)'7'i(/ge,  and  Divorce. 

benefits  only  by  his  identification  with  it."  In  which  definition  is  society  used 
here?  Is  it  the  government  or  the  State  which  is  the  only  direct  beneficiary  of  the 
arts  and  sciences?  Is  that  what  it  means?  Or  is  it  the  ^^ sentiment  of  fellowship 
and  equality  among  men"  whicli  is  the  direct  beneficiary  of  the  arts  and  sciences? 
Or,  finally,  is  it  men  individualized  by  "looking  away  from  governments  and 
finding  true  help  in  themselves,"  who  are  the  direct  beneficiary,  etc.,  and  the  indi- 
vidual man  only  so  because  he  is  "one  of  'em"?  Whose  superficiality  and  utter 
confusion  of  ideas  is  it  this  time?  Words  have  a  tendency  to  obscurity  when  no 
definite  ideas  are  attached  to  tliem. 

Beauties  of  style,  a  certain  dashing  fluency  of  utterance,  brilliancy  of  fancy, 
vague  intuitions  of  floating  grandeur,  or  of  sublime  truth  even,  simply  or  con- 
jointly, don't  make  a  philosopher.  Some  clearness  of  intellectual  vision,  some  ana- 
lysis and  knowledge  of  causes,  some  exactness  in  definitions,  a  certain  expansiveness 
and  comprehension  of  one's  whole  subject,  and  even  more  than  all,  perhaps,  a  rigid 
adherence  to  the  laws  of  dialectics,  by  which  premises  are  fearlessly  pursued  to 
their  natural  and  inevitable  conclusions,  lead  where  they  may,  are  requisite  to  that 
end.  It  is  always  a  misfortune  to  mistake  one's  vocation.  It  is  a  misfortune, 
however,  which  can  be  partially  retrieved  at  almost  any  period  of  life,  and  we  all 
acquire  wisdom  by  painful  experiences.  There  is  some  department,  I  feel  certain, 
in  which  your  Correspondent  might  excel.  As  he  declines  to  be  patronized,  I  shall 
abstain  from  impertinent  suggestions. 

Dodge  No.  3  is  another  cuttle-Jish  plunge  into  the  regions  of  "the  infinite,"  and, 
of  course,  of  the  indefinite,  the  accustomed  retreat  of  impracticable  theorists. 
Your  Correspondent  informs  us  that,  as  "ideas  are  infinite,  they  admit  of  no  con- 
trast or  oppugnancy."  I  think  he  must  have  discovered  by  this  time  that  there  is 
both  "contrast "  and  "oppugnancy  "  between  his  ideas  and  mine,  so  far  at  least  as  his 
sublimated  conceptions  still  retain  anything  of  the  finite  or  definite.  Into  the  other 
region  I  am  willing  to  follow  him  when  occasion  offers,  and  to  examine  with  the 
rigorous  grasp  of  modern  philosophical  criticism  your  Correspondent's  fanciful  re- 
production of  Plato's  idealism  and  of  the  rose-colored  atheism  of  Spinoza,  and  to 
separate  for  him  the  legitimate  from  the  illegitimate,  the  possible  from  the  impos- 
sible, in  the  field  of  human  speculation.  At  the  moment,  however,  my  business 
lies,  and  bis  ought  to  lie,  with  the  simple  questions  of  practical  life  relating  to 
marriage  and  divorce,  —  the  matters  under  discussion. 

The  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  is  an  absurdity,  contends  your 
Correspondent,  because  man  is  under  a  three-fold  subjection,  in  the  nature  of  things; 
first,  "to  nature,  then  to  society  [in  which  meaning  of  the  word?],  and  finally  to 
God."  Grant  all  this  bo  so,  does  the  fact  that  man  must  ever  remain  under  a  ne- 
cessary or  appropriate  subjection  to  society, — that  is,  under  a  certain  limitation 
of  the  sphere  of  his  activity  by  the  legitimate  extension  of  the  spheres  of  other  in- 
dividuals,—  does  it  follow,  I  say,  that  it  is  an  absurdity  to  inquire  and  fix  scienti- 


I 


Love,  Mai^'iage,  and  Divorce.  83 

fically  what  that  limit  is?  Now,  this  is  precisely  what  we  profess  to  have  done, 
and  we  give  "the  sovereignty  of  every  indiWdual  to  l>e  exerci.sed  at  his  own  cost" 
as  the  result  of  that  investigation.  What  possible  application  has  the  vague  gene- 
ralization of  your  Correspondent,  as  a  counter-statement  to  tliat  principle,  how 
true  soever  his  proposition  may  be. 

It  is  as  if  I  were  to  ask  the  opinion  of  a  Swcdenborgian  of  the  policy  of  abolbh- 
ing  the  laws  for  the  collection  of  debts,  and  he  should  reply,  **Sir,  my  opinion  is 
that,  if  you  act  rightly  in  the  matter,  your  action  must  be  dictatccl  by  ui>  equal 
union  of  the  divine  love  and  the  divine  wisdom."  I  nmst  reply,  "Very  well,  my 
dear  sir,  but  that  is  all  granted  to  begin  with,  and,  although  it  may  give  you  a 
great  air  of  profound  wisdom  to  repeat  it,  my  question  is  a  practical  one.  I  want 
to  know  what,  in  your  judgment,  would  be  the  operation  of  love  and  wLsdonj  as 
applied  to  .the  case  in  everyday  practical  life  which  I  have  brought  to  your 
attention." 

I  ask  in  all  sincerity,  "What  is  the  scientific  limit  of  man's  apj)ropriate  freedom 
as  respects  society?"  and  your  Correspondent  replies,  witli  the  holemnity  of  an 
owl:  Sir,  it  is  frivolous  and  absurd  to  ask  such  a  question,  because  there  w  an  ap- 
propriate limit  upon  man's  freedom,  and,  therefore,  man  can  never  be  wholly  free. 

And  yet  your  Correspondent  has  tlie  hardihood  to  talk  of  a  scientifically  consti- 
tuted society,  as  if  such  terms  corresponded  to  any  definite  idea.s  in  his  mind.  I 
want  to  know  whether,  in  a  rightly  or  scientifically  constituted  human  society,  I 
am  to  be  permitted  to  read  the  Protestant  Scriptures  at  Florence;  whether  I  am 
to  be  permitted  to  publish  a  scientific  discovery  at  Rome;  whether  I  can  print  my 
own  opinions  and  views  upon  general  politics  at  Paris;  whether  I  can  travel  on  a 
Sunday  in  Connecticut,  etc.,  etc.  I  want  to  know  what  constitutes  an  infringe- 
ment upon  the  rights  of  other  men,  and  within  what  limit  I  am  committing  no  in- 
fringement,—  not  according  to  the  arbitrary  legislation  of  some  petty  principality, 
but  according  to  natural  and  eternal  right?  To  all  this,  the  answer  comes  back: 
Nonsense,  man  is  necessarily* subject  to  society  to  some  extent. 

Now,  sir,  I  am  fatigued  with  this  sort  of  infinitude  of  ideas  which  never  have 
any  "oppugnancy,"  because,  having  neither  substance  nor  form,  they  can  protluce 
no  shock.  I  hope  your  Correspondent  will  be  content  to  withdraw  into  that  field 
of  pure  idealism  which  is  devoiil  of  all  "contra.sts"  and  distinctions.  It  must  Ih» 
laborious  to  him  to  inhabit  a  sphere  where  dejinitions  and  limilaiions  are  sometimes 
necessary  to  enable  us  to  know  what  we  are  talking  about.  Let  him  seek  his  fret»- 
dom  in  the  broad  expanse  of  the  infinite.  I,  for  the  present,  will  endeavor  to  vin- 
dicate some  portion  of  mine  by  ascertaining  the  exact  limits  of  enrroaohnient 
between  me  and  my  neighbor,  religiously  refraining  from  pa.Hsing  tho.so  limits  my- 
self, and  mildly  or  forcibly  restraining  him  from  doing  so,  —  as  1  mu>t. 

Stemikn  Pcakl  Andrews. 


84  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce, 


xn. 


A  PARTHIAN  ARROW  BY  MR.  GREELEY. 

A  Heart-beoken  Maniac.  —  We  have  just  been  put  in  possession  of  the  particulars  of  a 
scene  of  sorrow  seldom  witnessed.  A  young  lady,  of  this  city,  respectably  connected  and  of 
fair  reputation,  nearly  two  years  ago  became  acquainted  with  a  man  now  residing  in 
this  place.  The  acquaintance  soon  ripened  into  a  strong  attachment,  and,  finally,  love,  on 
her  part.  Under  the  promise  of  marriage,  as  she  says,  she  was  made  to  yield  to  his  solicita- 
tions, and  last  autumn  she  gave  birth  to  a  child,  which  lived  only  two  days.  He  disregarded 
his  promises,  —  avoided  and  frowned  upon  her.  Here  she  was  deprived  of  her  lover  and  of 
her  child.  She  felt  that  every  eye  was  turned  upon  her  with  scorn,  —  that  those  who  saw 
her  at  her  work,  or  met  her  in  the  street,  knew  her  disgrace.  Day  by  day,  and  week  by 
week,  her  heart  sank  within  her,  paleness  came  to  her  cheeks,  and  her  frame  wasted  away 
till  she  is  now  almost  a  living  skeleton.  Wednesday  morning  she  went  to  work  in  the  mills, 
as  usual,  but  soon  returned,  saying  that  she  was  sick.  In  a  few  hours  she  was  a  raving 
maniac,  her  reason  gone,  perhaps  forever.  Since  then  she  has  had  a  few  rational  intervals, 
in  one  of  which  she  stated  that  she  met  that  morning  the  one  she  calls  her  betrayer,  and  he 
frowned  upon  her  and  treated  her  with  contempt.  She  could  bear  all  the  disgrace  that  at- 
taches to  her  condition,  if  he  would  treat  her  kindly.  But  the  thought  that  the  one  she  has 
loved  so  dearly,  and  the  one  who  made  her  such  fair  promises,  should  desert  her  at  this  time, 
and  heartlessly  and  cruelly  insult  her,  is  too  much  for  her  to  bear.  Her  brothers  and  friends 
are  borne  down  with  sorrow  at  her  condition.  What  a  picture!  It  needs  no  comment  of 
ours.  Public  opinion  will  hunt  down  the  heartless  villain  who  betrayed  her.  —  Manchester 
(N.  H.)  Mirror. 

The  above  relation  provokes  some  reflection  on  "  the  sovereignty  of  the  indivi- 
dual," "the  right  of  every  man  to  do  pretty  much  as  he  pleases,"  etc.,  which  the 
reader  will  please  follow  out  for  himself. 

Editor  of  the  Tribune. 


Ziove^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  86 


XIIL 


BBPLY  BY  MR.  ANDREWS. 


The  above  missile  a  (ergo  from  my  valorous  autagonist  —  after  his  retreat  into 
the  safety  of  a  unilateral  contest  —  is  suggestive  of  many  things,  and  might  con- 
stitute the  text  for  a  whole  bookful  of  commentary.  It  b  the  usual  whine  of 
blear-eyed  and  inveterate  tyranny,  gloating  over  the  fact  that  some  one  of  liis  vic- 
tims has  got  himself,  or  herself,  into  a  worse  fix  by  disregarding  his  beh««t«,  and 
attempting  an  escape  from  his  infernal  grip,  than  he  or  she  wa.s  in  before.  The 
slave-hunter,  amid  the  baling  of  his  blood-hounds  upon  the  warm  scent  of  the  track 
of  an  unhappy  fugitive,  growls  out  in  the  same  manner  his  curses  upon  the  inhu- 
manity of  the  man  who  has  preached  freedom  to  the  captive,  charging  upon  him 
all  the  horrors  of  the  sickening  scene  that  is  about  to  ensue.  Should  the  friend 
who  has  whispered  longings  after  emancipation  into  the  greedy  ear  of  the  victim 
of  slavery  afterwanl,  through  cowardice  or  seltishnesa  or  from  any  cause  overmas- 
tering his  devotion,  shrink  from  going  all  lengths  in  uniting  his  fortunes  with 
those  of  the  slave, — either  by  rL-mainiug  with  him  in  bondage,  or  taking  his  full 
share  in  the  risks  of  the  flight;  and,  if  this  desertion  should  rankle  in  the  breast  of 
the  fugitive  as  the  worst  torment  of  his  forlorn  state,  even  when  sore  pressed  by  the 
devouring  dogs,  —  the  case  would  be  parallel  in  all  ways  to  the  one  cited  by  Mr. 
Greeley. 

Our  transcendent  philosopher  and  moralist  of  the  "Tribune"  can  imply  the  most 
•withering  hatred  of  the  ".seducer"  and  "heartless  villain,"  whom  "public  opinion  " 
is  invoked  to  "hunt  down"  for  his  crime,  and  whisper  no  word  of  rebuke  for  — 
nay,  aggravate  and  hound  on  —  that  same  public  opinion  in  its  still  more  reckless 
vengeance  ujx)n  the  unfortunate  girl  herself,  by  efforts  to  intensify  "all  the  dis- 
grace that  attaches  to  her  condition,"  which,  terrible  as  it  is  now,  she  said,  poor 
creature  I  she  had  the  fortitude  "to  bear,"  but  for  the  other  element  in  her  misery. 
That  other  element,  the  betrayal  of  her  lover,  in  addition  to  the  insane  odium  of 
the  public,  Mr.  Greeley  charges  upon  the  "seducer."  I  charge  both  one  and  the 
other  cause  of  the  poor  girl's  torture  and  insanity,  just  as  bolilly,  upon  Mr.  (Iroeley 
liimself  and  the  like  of  him.  If  the  mental  phenomena  which  led  to  her  l>etrAyul 
by  her  lover  could  be  investigated,  they  would  be  indubitably  traced  back  to  the 
senseless  rigors  of  that  same  public  opinion;  so  that  both  causes  of  the  wreck  ;r.id 


86  Love^  Marriage^  and  I}ivorce. 

insanity  of  one  party,  and  of  the  eudless  remorse  aud  torment  of  the  other,  as  we 
must  presume,  flow  from  the  same  counuon  fountain,  —  a  vitiated  public  sentiment, 
adverse  to,  and  intolerant  of,  freedom,  or  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  I 

How  exceedingly  probable  that,  at  the  very  moment  this  hapless  girl's  lover  cast 
the  repulsive  glance  that  pierced  her  already  wounded  heart  and  overthrew  her 
reason,  his  own  heart  was  half  bursting  with  the  tcnderest  compassion.  Placed  in 
the  dire  alternative  of  renouncing  affection,  or  else  of  abjuring  his  own  freedoux 
perpetually,  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  may  have  overborne  in  his  case,  as  it 
must  and  will  overbear  in  many  cases,  tlie  natural  sentiments  of  manhood  and  gal- 
lantry and  paternal  tenderness,  all  of  whicli,  unobstructed  by  a  blundering  legisla- 
tion and  an  ignorant  public  prejudice,  would  have  prompted  him  to  remain  by  her 
side,  acknowledge  her  publicly,  and  succor  and  sustain  lier  through  all  the  conse- 
quences of  their  mutual  love.  Remove  frum  a  man  the  arbitrary  demand  that  he  shall 
make  more  sacrifice  than  he  feels  to  he  just,  and  you  neutralize,  or  evidently  diminish,  the 
temptation,  on  his  part,  to  make  less.  Demand  pledges  of  hinj,  on  the  contrary,  under 
the  penalty  of  the  penitentiary,  against  that  over  which  he  knows,  by  all  his  past 
experience,  that  he  has  no  more  control  than  he  has  over  his  opinions  or  his  tastes, 
— namely,  that  his  affections  shall  remain  unchanged  for  life,  that  he  will  never 
love  another  woman,  or  that,  if  he  does,  he  will  crush  that  love  as  he  would  a 
viper,  no  matter  though  his  own  heart  and  others  bleed  to  death  in  the  effort ;  add 
to  this  that  he  shall  change  his  whole  methods  of  life,  assume  the  care  and  direc- 
tion of  a  family  establishment,  for  which  he  m  ay  have  no  taste,  but  only  repug- 
nance, and  take  upon  himself  the  liability  of  being  required  to  support  many  lives, 
instead  of  the  burdens  already  incumbent  on  him,  beyond,  it  may  be,  already,  his 
consciousness  of  power  to  bear  up  against  the  diffi  culties  of  surrounding  competi- 
tion and  antagonism;  and  you  put  before  him  what  may  be,  acting  upon  some 
natures,  —  not  the  worst,  as  they  are  deemed,  but  the  best  as  God  made  them, — 
an  insuperable  obstacle  to  the  performance  of  those  acts  of  justice  which  would  be 
otherwise  their  natural  and  irrepressible  impulse. 

With  some  men  and  some  women  the  instinct  for  freedom  is  a  domination  too 
potent  to  be  resisted.  An  association  with  angels  under  constraint  would  be  to 
them  a  hell.  The  language  of  their  souls  is  "  Give  me  liberty,  or  give  me  death." 
Such  natures  have  noble  and  generous  propensities  in  other  directions.  Say  to  a 
man  of  this  sort,  abjure  freedom  or  abjure  love,  and,  along  with  it,  the  dear  object 
whom  you  have  already  compromised  in  the  world's  estimation,  and  who  can  fore- 
see the  issue  of  that  terrible  conflict  of  the  passions  which  must  ensue?  In  the 
vast  majority  of  such  cases,  notwithstanding  all,  generosity  and  love  conquer,  and 
the  man  knowingly  sacrifices  himself  and  all  future  thought  of  happiness  in  the 
privation  of  freedom,  the  consciousness  of  which  no  affection,  no  amount  of  the 
world's  good  opinion,  no  consideration  of  any  kind,  can  compensate  him  for  nor 
reconcile  him  to.    It  would  be  strange,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  balance  of  motive 


II 


Z/OvCj  Marriage,  and  Divorce.  87 

never  fell  upon  the  other  side;  and  then  comes  the  terrible  desertion,  the  crushing 
weight  of  public  scorn  upon  the  unprotected  liead  of  the  wretched  woman,  and  the 
lasting  destruction  of  the  happiness  of  all  concerned,  in  another  of  the  8tereot}-ped 
forms  of  evil. 

I  do  not  deny  that,  among  those  men,  nor,  indeed,  that  the  great  majority  of 
those  men  who  seduce  and  betray  women  are  bad  men ;  that  is,  that  they  are  un- 
developed, hardened,  and  perverted  b«ings,  hardly  capable  of  compassion  or  re- 
morse. What  I  do  afhrm  is  that  there  are,  also,  among  them,  men  of  the  most 
refined  and  delicate  and  genlli;  natures,  fitted  to  endure  the  most  intense  suffering 
themselves,  while  they  inllict  it  —  none  but  their  own  hearts  can  tell  how  unwil- 
lingly—  on  those  they  most  dearly  prize  in  the  world;  and  that  society  is  in  fault 
to  place  such  men  in  such  a  cruel  conflict  with  themselves,  in  which  some  propor- 
tion of  tlie  whole  number  so  tried  is  .sure  to  fall.  I  also  aflirm  that,  of  the  former 
class,  —  the  undeveloiwd,  hardened,  and  perverted,  —  their  undevelopment,  harden- 
ing, and  perversion  are  again  chargeable  upon  our  false  social  arrangement.^,  and, 
more  than  all  else,  perhaps,  upon  that  very  exclusion  from  a  genial  and  familiar 
association  with  the  female  sex,  now  deemed  essential,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
marriage  institution  in  "its  purity."  And,  finally,  I  affirm  that,  while  such  men 
exist,  the  best  protection  that  woman  can  have  against  their  machinations  is  more 
development  on  her  own  part,  such  as  can  alone  come  from  incjre  freedom,  more 
knowledge  of  the  world,  more  familiarity  with  tnen,  njore  ability  to  judge  of  cha- 
racter and  to  read  the  intentions  of  those  by  wiiom  she  is  approached,  more  woman- 
hood, in  fine ;  instead  of  a  namby-pamby,  lackadaisical,  half-silly  interestingness, 
cultured  and  procured  by  a  nun-like  seclusion  from  business,  from  freedom  of  loco- 
motion, from  unrestrained  intercommunication  of  thought  and  sentiment  with  the 
male  sex,  and,  in  a  word,  from  almost  the  whole  circle  of  the  rational  means  of 
development. 

He  must  be  an  unobservant  man,  indeed,  who  does  not  perceive  the  pregnant 
signs  all  around  him  that  approximations  toward  the  opinions  now  uttered  by  mo 
are  everj'where  existent,  and  becoming  every  day  nearer  and  more  frequent. 

"When  people  understand,"  says  Lord  Stowell,  in  the  case  of  Kvans  vs.  Kvan.s 
1st  Consistory  Reports,  p.  ;iO,  "that  they  mu.it  live  together,  they  learn,  by  nmtual 
accommodation,  to  bear  that  yoke  wiiich  they  know  they  cannot  shale  off; 
they  become  good  husbands  and  wives  (!)  from  the  necexniti/  of  remaining  hus- 
bands and  wives,  for  necessity  is  a  powerful  master  in  teachiny  (he  duties  which  it  im- 
poses." How  antiquated  does  such  a  ilefence  of  any  institution  Wgin  to  s<nmtl  to 
our  ears  I  It  is  equally  good  wlien  applied  to  desix)tism,  to  shivery,  to  the  Inquisi- 
tion, or  to  any  other  of  the  forms  in  which  force  and  ntri-ssiiy  are  brought  to  l>ear 
upon  human  beings  to  the  destruction  of  their  freedom  and  the  ruin  of  their  high- 
'st  happiness.  Indeed,  it  is  the  argument  which,  time  out  of  mind,  has  been  ro- 
lled upon  to  sustain  all  those  ancient  abu.ses  which  are  melting  away  before  Uie 


88  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

spirit  of  this  age.  We  are  rapidly  discarding  force,  and  recognizing  the  truth  and 
purity  and  potency  of  love  or  attraction  in  government,  in  education,  in  social  life, 
and  everywhere. 

The  restraints  of  marriage  are  becoming  daily  less.  Its  oppressions  are  felt 
more  and  more.  There  are  today  in  our  midst  ten  times  as  many  fugitives  from  inatri- 
innuy  as  there  are  fugitives  from  slavery ;  and  it  may  well  be  doubted  if  the  aggregate,  or 
the  average,  of  their  sufferings  has  been  less.  There  is  h  ardly  a  country  village  that 
has  not  from  one  to  a  dozen  such  persons.  When  these  unfortunates,  flying  from 
the  blessings  of  one  of  our  peculiar  and  divine  institutions,  hitherto  almost  wholly 
unquestioned,  happen  to  be  women,  —  the  weaker  sex,  —  they  are  contemptuously 
designated  "grass  widows";  as  "runaway"  or  "free  nigger"  is,  in  like  manner, 
applied  to  the  outlaws  of  another  "domestic"  arrangement,  —  freedom  in  either 
case  becoming,  by  a  horrible  social  inversion,  a  badge  of  reproach.  These  severed 
halves  of  the  matrimonial  unit  are,  nevertheless,  achieving  respectability  by  virtue 
of  numbers,  and  in  America,  at  least,  have  nearly  ceased  to  suffer  any  loss  of  caste 
by  the  peculiarity  of  their  social  condition.  Divorce  is  more  and  more  freely  ap- 
plied for,  and  easily  obtained.  Bastard  children  are  now  hardly  persecuted  at  all 
by  that  sanctimonious  Phariseeism  which,  a  few  generations  ago,  hunted  them  to 
the  death  for  no  fault  of  theirs.  The  rights  of  women  are  every  day  more  and 
more  loudly  discussed.  Marriage  has  virtually  ceased  to  claim  the  sanction  of  re- 
ligion, fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  civil  magistrate,  and  come  to  be  regarded  as 
merely  a  civil  contract.  While  thus  recognized  as  solely  a  legal  convention,  the 
repugnance  for  merely  conventional  marriages  (mariages  de  convenance)  is  yet  deep- 
ening in  the  public  mind  into  horror,  and  taking  the  place  of  that  heretofore  felt 
against  a  genuine  passion  not  sanctified  by  the  blessing  of  the  Church.  I  quote  from 
one  of  the  most  conservative  writers  of  the  age  when  I  say  that  "it  is  not  the  mere 
ring  and  the  orange  blossom  which  constitute  the  difference  between  virtue  and 

VICE." 

Indeed,  it  may  be  stated  as  the  growing  public  sentiment  of  Christendom  already 
that  the  man  and  woman  who  do  not  i.ove  have  no  right,  before  God,  to  live  to- 
gether as  MAX  and  wife,  no  matter  how  solemn  the  marriage  service  which  may 
have  been  mumbled  over  them.  This  is  the  negative  statement  of  a  grand 
TiruTn,  already  arrived  at  and  becoming  daily  louder  and  more  peremptory  in  its 
utterance.  How  long,  think  you,  it  will  be  before  the  converse,  or  positive,  side 
of  the  same  truth  will  be  affirmed, — namely,  that  the  man  and  woman  wlio  do 
LOVE  can  live  together  in  purity  without  any  mummery  at  all,  —  that  it  is  i.ove 
that  sanctifes,  not  the  blessing  of  the  Church? 

Such  is  my  doctrine.  Such  is  the  horrid  heresy  of  which  I  am  guilty.  And 
such,  say  what  you  will,  is  the  eternal,  inexpugnable  truth  of  God  and  nature. 
Batter  at  it  till  your  bones  ache,  and  you  can  never  successfully  assail  it.  Sooner 
or  later  you  must  come  to  it,  and  whether  it  shall  be  sooner  or  later  is  hardly  left 


J 


Love,  jMarriar/e,  and  Divorce.  89 

to  your  option.  The  progress  of  opinion,  the  great  growth  of  the  world,  in  thi* 
age,  is  sweeping  all  men,  with  the  strength  of  an  ocean  current,  to  the  acceptance 
of  these  views  of  love  and  marriage,  —  to  the  acceptance  of  universal  freedom, — 
freedom  to  feel  and  act,  u.s  well  as  freedom  to  think,  —  to  the  acceptance,  in  fine, 

of  TIIK  HOVEREIGNTV  OF  KVKUV  INDl VIDLAI-,  To  HE  EXEKCISED  AT  III«  OWN  COST. 
If  our  remaining  institutions  are  found  to  Ijc  adverse  to  this  free<lom,  so  that  bad 
results  follow  from  its  accfptanoe,  then  our  remaining  inntitutions  are  wrong,  and 
the  remedy  is  to  be  .sought  in  still  farther  and  more  radical  changes. 

Had  there  existed  a  public  opinion  alreatly  formed,  based  on  freedom,  the  |»oor 
girl  in  New  Ilatnpshire,  whose  sad  histt»ry  wo  have  read  in  a  paragraph,  wouhl  pro- 
bably not  have  been  deserted,  or,  if  she  were,  she  would  not  have  fell  that  "everv 
eye  was  turned  uj)on  her  in  scorn,  knowing  her  disgrace,"  visiting  ujKjn  her  a  wonM* 
torture  than  any  ever  invented  by  savages,  l>ecause,  forsooth,  she  had  already  been 
cruelly  wronged!  A  Christian  people,  indeed  I  ''Her  heart"  would  not  have 
"sunk  within  her  day  by  day  and  week  by  week."  "Paleness"  would  not  have 
"come  upon  her  cheeks,"  and  "her  frame"  have  "wai<ted  away  until  she  wx>»  al- 
most a  living  skeleton."  She  would  not  have  l»ecome  a  raving  maniac,  "ller 
brothers  and  friends"  would  not  have  been  "borne  down  with  sorrow  at  her  con- 
dition." Public  opinion  would  not  have  l>een  invoked  "to  hunt  down"  her  be- 
trayer, after  first  hunting  down  her;  and,  finally,  her  misfortune  would  not  have 
been  paraded  and  gloated  over  by  a  sliameless  public  press,  Mr.  Greeley  in  the  van, 
holding  up  the  poor,  agonized,  heart-riven,  |X'rsecuted  vii-tim  of  the  infernalism  of 
our  social  institutions,  in  warning  to  others  against  yielding  to  the  purest  and  holi- 
est and  most  jxiwerful  of  the  sentiments  whieh  (Jtxl  has  implanted  in  the  human 
heart,  —  the  joint  force  of  the  yearning  after  freedom  and  after  love. 

Mr.  Greeley,  the  wrong  that  infests  our  .social  arrangements  is  deeper  and  more 
central  than  you  have  l)elieved.  It  is  not  to  be  cured  by  suj>erficial  appliances  and 
conservative  nostrums.  The  science  of  social  relations  must  be  known  and  applif^l. 
You  do  not  know  it.  You  refuse  to  study  it.  You  do  not  believe  that  there  is  :iriy 
such  science  either  known  or  possible.  You  persist  in  .scratching  over  the  Kurlace, 
in.stead  of  putting  the  plough  down  into  the  subsoil  of  social  reform.  Very  well, 
then,  the  world  can't  wait!  You  nmst  drop  behind,  and  the  army  of  progress  must 
even  consent  to  proceed  without  your  leadership.  I  have  been  already  a  dozen 
times  congratulated  that  I  am  helping  to  render  you  entirely  "projH'r"  and  "or- 
thodox." If  you  were  (juite  sincere  and  more  logical  than  you  an',  I  could  drive 
you  clean  back  to  the  j>apacy  upon  all  subjects,  where  you  have  already  confeK-n-tily 
gone  u|X)n  the  subject  of  divorce,  —  except  that  you  relax  a  little  in  your  rigor  out 
of  i>ersonal  deference  to  Christ. 

The  truth  will  ere  long  l>«  ap]Uirent  that  there  is  no  middle  groimd  u|Hm  which 
a  man  of  sense  can  i>ernianently  stand  lietwe4.*n  absitlutism,  Nirui  j'atth,  and  itnplini 
obedience  to  authority,  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  olhrr,  "(he  surereit/nty  of  the 
indiridual."  Stki'IIK-N  Pi:aui.  Andhews. 


90  Love,  Marrla(je,  and  Divorce. 


XIV* 


SXaiCTURES  ON  AN  ARTICLE  FROM   IlKMiY  JAME9,  IN  THE  NEW  YORK  "TRIBUNE 

OF  FEBUUAllY  12,  1803. 

My  dear  Andrews: 

I  have  read  James's  stuff  in  response  to  your  article,  and  have  no  doubt  that  you 
will  approciate  it.  I  saw,  as  I  anticipated  and  luentioned  to  you,  that  your  article 
required  intelligeuce  and  caudor  iu  the  reader  equal  to  those  of  the  writer  to  do  it 
justice. 

Mr.  James  appears  to  possess  neither,  to  the  degree  required  for  a  controversy 
80  important  as  this  is  in  the  present  crisis.  He  has,  however,  been  driven,  by 
your  clear  and  definite  statement  of  a  great  principle,  to  dabble  with  it,  and  so  to 
open  the  way  for  its  introduction.  Ilis  very  perversion  of  your  fornmla  demands 
correction,  and  calls  for  a  discrimination  that  he  seems  not  to  comprehend. 

He  misquotes  your  formula  as  saying  that  one  "  may  do  as  he  pleases,  provided 
he  will  accept  the  consequences  of  so  doing."  He  says  he  finds  it  thus  propounded. 
This  is  a  misrepresentation.  He  does  not  find  it  "thus  propounded,"  but  has  per- 
verted it,  either  through  carelessness,  or  ignorance,  or  a  less  excusable  design  to 
misrepresent;  but  this  matters  not,  — it  is  his  practical  applications  that  interest 
us.  Having  furnished  his  own  formula,  he  then  goes  on  to  show  how  ridiculous  it 
is;  but  at  the  same  time  shows  that  the  plane  of  his  morality  (although  a  teacher 
of  the  public)  is  even  below  that  of  the  humble  and  unpretending.  He  seems  to 
see  no  other  consequences  of  stealing  than  what  he  finds  in  the  penitentiary  1  no 
other  consequences  of  lying  than  the  violation  of  one  of  the  commands  of  the 
decalogue!  no  other  consequences  of  "prostituting  your  neigh V)or's  daughter" 
"  but  the  scorn  of  every  honest  nature  "  1  Had  he  read  your  formula  intelligently 
and  candidly,  I  think  he  could  not  have  failed  to  see  that  the  "exercise  of  my  sove- 
reignty at  my  own  cost,"  while  it  would  give  me  supreme  control  over  my  own  pro- 
perty within  my  own  sphere,  equally  prohibits  any  use  of  it  to  the  injury  of  another. 
The  same  fornmla  would  regulate  the  acquisition  of  property.  I  may  acquire  as 
much  as  I  please  at  my  own  cost,  but,  if  I  steal  another's,  I  acquire  it  at  his  "cost," 

•I  cannot,  perhaps,  better  close  this  controve  rsy  than  by  the  insertion  of  the  above  communicntiou 
siipr^restcd  by  it,  and  which  will  show  how  difloreutly  the  doctrine  of  "  the  sovereignty  of  the  indivi- 
dual "  lii's  in  some  people's  minds  from  what  it  appears  to  do  in  the  minds  of  Mr.  Greeley  and  Mr. 
James. —5.  P.  A. 


Love^  Marriayey  and  Divorce.  91 

which  is  a  viulatioti  of  lii.s  sovureij^iity  and  uf  the  formula.  Again,  had  society 
been  furtued  under  the  influuncu  uf  8uch  a  regulating  principle,  Mr.  James  and  hiti 
readers  might  have  been  spared  his  coarse  allusion  to  seduction.  No  one  whu^e 
habits  had  been  formed  upon  this  simple  but  sublime  principle  would  ever  think 
of  involving  "a  neighbor's  daughter,"  nor  any  other  person,  in  suffering  by  the 
pursuit  of  his  happiness.  ThLs  would  bo  acting  at  their  "coal"  inb-tea<l  of  his  own; 
it  would  be  a  violation  of  their  sovereignty  and  of  the  fonnula.  Wh»"n  a  strict 
and  sacred  regard  to  the  "sovereignty  of  every  individual"  shall  l>egin  to  regulal<' 
the  acts  of  mankind,  innocence  and  confiding  love  will  begin  to  be  safe,  and  find 
protectors  in  all  who  surround  them.  Thus,  the  readers  of  Mr.  James  (if  not  Mr. 
James  himself)  will  see  that  this  simple  formula,  which  he  says  "is  as  old  as  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  uix-us  to  view  a  plane  of  morality  as  much  higher  than 
the  vision  of  Mr.  James  as  it  is  new  and  necessary  to  the  world. 


92  Love,  Marriaye^  and  Divorce, 


XV* 

A  LETTER  FKOM  MU.  JAMES  TQ  U.  Y.  R. 

t 

My  dear  friend '. 

Mrs.  WoodhuU  has  labored  very  liard  to  make  ^Ir.  Beecher  out  a  free-lover  in  a 
practical  way;  and  certainly  (from  the  silence  of  Mr.  Tilton  and  the  rest  as  I  judge) 
with  some  show  of  success.  But  as  to  that  I  feel  indifferent.  He  at  all  events  is 
not  a  technical  free-lover,  and  his  infirmity  will  be  condoned  by  society  therefore 
as  a  weakness  of  the  will  under  great  temptation,  etc.,  etc.,  and  as  not  indicating 
any  hostility  to  marriage  or  the  social  sentiment.  This  is  what  makes  the  public 
hate  technical  or  professional  free-love,  —  that  it  is  the  enemy  of  all  society  or  fel- 
lowship among  men,  inasmuch  as  it  makes  organic  instinct  supreme  in  human  ac- 
tion, as  it  is  in  the  animal  nature,  and  gives  an  eternal  lie  to  marriage  as  the 
sovereign  dignity  of  our  race.  Speculative  free-love  has  actually  no  case  against 
our  existing  civic  regime  even,  which  a  judicious  enlargement  of  the  law  of  divorce 
would  not  at  once  refute.  I  should  have  no  quarrel  with  it,  but  on  the  contrary 
would  bid  it  godspeed,  if  it  sought  only  to  hallow  marriage  in  men's  esteem  by 
securing  such  a  law  of  divorce  as  might  permit  every  one  to  whom  marriage  w^as 
hateful  or  intolerable  to  leave  its  ranks  as  soon  as  possible,  and  so  close  them  up 
to  its  undefiled  lovers  alone.  Of  course  T  am  not  so  stupid  as  to  suppose  that  there 
is  anything  essentially  evil,  or  incompatible  with  innocence,  in  tlie  indulgence  of 
natural  appetite  and  passion.  But  I  hold  just  as  clearly  that  it  is  fatal  to  all  man- 
hood—  much  more,  then,  to  all  womanhood  —  to  make  such  indulgence  an  end  of 
action. 

No  man  and  woman  can  do  that  deliberately  without  converting  themselves  — 
into  brutes?    No!   for  the  brute  is  heavenly  sweet  compared  with  such  men  and 

•  That  portion  of  the  tliscuRsioii  wliich  l^epins  here  was  a  revival  of  the  original  controversy  after  an 
interval  of  about  twenty  years,  occasioned  by  the  famous  AVoodliull-Clallin  exposure  of  Henry  Ward 
Beecher.  That  exposure  led  Mr.  James  to  write  a  letter  to  a  friend.  If.  Y.  R.,  on  tht.'  matters  involved, 
which  wiis  printed  in  tlie  f^t.  Paul  "  I'ress  "  two  years  later.  Jl.  V.  II.  then  sent  Mr.  James's  letter, 
ai-companied  by  a  letter  of  \\\s  own,  to  Mr.  Andrews,  both  of  which  appeared  in  "  Woodliull  I'i:  Oaflin's 
Weekly"  of  April  IS,  isTJ,  followcil  by  Mr.  Andrews's  comments.  This  again  called  out  .Mr.  James, 
whose  letter  in  the  "  AVeekly's  "  issues  of  JIuy  !)  and  May  10,  1874,  together  with  Mr.  Anilrrws's  reply 
thereto,  closed  the  controversy.  These  documents  conclude  the  present  compilation.  — /'uWis/j«r'» 
Sote. 


Love,  Jfirriuf/e,  and  Divorce.  03 

women  —  but  into  devils.  The  distinctive  glory  of  njan  is  personality  or  character, 
the  power  of  transcending  his  organization  and  realizing  divinity;  and  he  attains 
to  this  personality  or  character,  not  by  foolish  doing,  but  by  wise  and  patient  suf- 
fering; that  is,  by  subjecting  his  self-will,  or  will  of  the  flesh,  to  the  welfare  of  his 
neighbors  whenever  itself  prompts  injustice  to  them. 

IIow  infinitely  remote  all  this  marriage  doctrine  is  from  the  thought  of  the  free- 
lover  you  can  easily  ascertain  by  recurring  to  Mrs.  W.'s  indictment  of  poor  Bcecher. 
The  free-lover  aims  at  no  mere  negative  legislation.  He  is  a  doctrinaire,  and  what 
ho  wants  is,  not  the  reformation  of  men's  manners,  but  a  revolution,  whereby  what 
has  hitherto  been  subservient  in  liuman  nature  (the  flesh)  shall  he  supreme,  and 
what  has  hitherto  boon  supreme  (the  spirit)  shall  l^e  sub.servient.  He  will  allow 
no  coni{)romise  with  society  in  any  form,  for  he  <l(>esn't  believe  in  the  social  destiny 
of  man,  and  disposes  himself  to  reconstruct  the  world  simply  by  overturning  it,  or 
substituting  universal  discord  in  place  of  partial  order.  He  holds  that  every  man 
is  absolutely  free,  —  free  not  only  in  respect  to  outward  compulsion,  but  free  also 
in  respect  to  inward  constraint;  thus  that  he  is  essentially  devoid  of  obligation 
either  to  his  fellow-man  or  to  himself;  in  a  word,  his  own  sole  law,  and  hence  is 
never  so  unmanly  as  when  he  obeys  the  voice  of  conscience  in  preference  to  that  of 
appetite  and  pa.ssion. 

This  gospel  would  go  down  with  me  if  I  were  only  a  Chimpanzee.  For  in  that 
case,  knowing  absolutely  no  other  law  than  that  of  my  organization,  I  should  know 
nothing  of  the  social  sentiment,  nor  cojisequently  of  the  marriage  sentiment  in 
which  it  originates.  But  you  will  plea.se  observe  that  I  am  not  a  ohiinpanzee, 
either  in  origin  as  Mr.  Darwin  would  argue,  nor  in  destiny  a.s  the  free-lover  wouhl 
have  it;  and  the  gosj^el  of  free-love  consequently  turns  my  intellectual  stomach. 
I  have  an  animal  organization,  to  be  sure,  but  it  is  never  ray  master  from  infancy 
to  old  age,  unless  I  have  j>erv(>rtcd  my  human  force  by  vice,  but  always  my  wrvant. 
This  is  because  T,  unlike  the  animal,  am  born  into  a  miniature  society,  oulled  the 
family,  and  undergo  its  law,  whieh  is  that  of  reverence  and  oWdience  on  my  part 
toward  my  parents,  protection,  nourishment,  and  education  on  their  part  toward 
me.  Such  is  the  difference  in  origin  and  destiny  between  man  and  the  animals. 
The  latter  are  l>orn  to  obey  their  organization,  the  former  are  born  to  ol>ey  a  higher 
law.  In  a  word,  everj'  man,  by  virtue  of  his  birth  in  a  well-organ ize«l  family,  is 
more  or  less  subject,  inwardly,  to  con.science  or  the  social  .sentiment.  And  this 
sentiment  early  awakes  in  his  bosom  a  sense  of  jier-sonality  or  .selfhood  utterly  dis- 
tinct from  his  organization;  and  if  it  be  judiciously  nurtured  and  cultivated  by 
outside  influences,  it  gradually  leads  him  to  abhor  nothing  so  much  as  identiflc&- 
tion  with  his  appetites  and  na.<4sions.  Ho  claims  an  infinitely  higher,  purer,  and 
freer  law  of  action.  Of  course,  so  long  as  he  remains  a  child,  or  falls  short,  from 
any  cause,  of  normal  manhood,  he  feels  the  insurgence  of  his  organic  wants  very 
often,  and  does  in  consequence  many  harmful  and  unhandsome  tilings,  whictt  ia- 


94  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 

vite  stern  rebuke  and  discipline.  But,  if  he  l>e  arrested  in  time,  he  is  sure  to  dis- 
avow his  base  tendencies,  and  submit  himself  zealously  to  the  higher  law  he  has 
found  within. 

Especially  is  this  the  case  in  respect  to  the  sexual  sentiment  and  its  promptings. 
Love  has  now  ceased  to  be  purely  animal  with  him  and  is  becoming  human.  He 
now  no  longer  loves  at  the  impulse  of  his  organ  ization  merely,  and  without  regard 
to  the  personality  of  the  object,  as  the  animal  does,  but  is  overpoweringly  con- 
strained by  something  in  the  object  exclusively,  a  something  divine  to  his  imagina- 
tion, which  he  recognizes  as  the  consummation  of  his  being,  and  in  the  possession 
of  which  he  would  sacrifice  his  existence.  In  other  words,  love  now  proclaims  its 
transfiguration  into  the  marriage  sentiment,  and  if  it  ever  falls  away  from  that 
sentiment,  it  does  so  no  longer  as  love,  but  only  as  lasciviousness,  in  which  case  of 
course  the  man  reverts  from  man  to  monkey. 

Here,  perhaps,  you  will  ask  me  what  I  mean  by  marriage. 

Marriage  has  two  aspects :  one  literal,  as  a  civic  institution ;  the  other  spiritual, 
as  a  divine  education  or  discipline. 

1.  I  marry  my  wife  under  the  impression  that  she  is  literally  perfect,  and  is  go- 
ing to  exhaust  my  capacity  of  desire  ever  after.  Ere  long  I  discover  my  mistake. 
The  world,  the  flesh,  or  the  devil  (or  possibly  all  these  combined)  suggest  a  pun- 
gent sense  of  bondage  in  the  marriage  tie.  My  good  habits,  my  good  breeding, 
my  hearty  respect  for  my  wife,  my  sense  of  what  is  due  to  her  amiable  devotion, 
prevent  my  ever  letting  her  suspect  the  conflict  going  on  in  my  bosom  ;  but  there 
it  is,  nevertheless,  a  ceaseless  conflict  between  law  and  liberty,  between  conscience 
and  inclination.  I  know  that  it  would  be  possible  to  make  a  compromise  or  en- 
force a  truce  between  the  two  interests  by  clandestinely  pursuing  pleasure  and 
openly  following  duty.  But  my  heart  revolts  from  this.  I  feel  that  the  burden 
of  my  race  is  upon  me,  and  I  will  perish  under  it  if  need  be,  but  I  will  not  shirk 
it  like  a  sneak,  and  let  sincere  men  bear  it  unhelped  by  me. 

So  much  is  clear  to  me.  The  law  I  have  sworn  to  obey  is  beyond  my  strength. 
It  crushes  me  to  the  earth.  It  humiliates  me  in  my  self-esteem.  I  see  in  its  light 
that  I  am  no  better  than  the  overt  adulterer;  but  I  dare  not  resent  its  terrible 
castigation.  The  law  is  holy,  just,  and  even  good,  though  it  slay  me.  Yes,  death 
at  its  hands  were  better  than  life  at  the  risk  of  dishonor  at  my  hands;  so  I  abide 
by  my  marriage  bond.  I  see  very  well  that  the  bond  ought  to  be  loosened  in  the 
case  of  other  people;  that  divorce  should  be  allowed  more  freely  than  it  now  is,  so 
that  multitudes  of  people  to  whom  marriage  as  a  divine  education  or  discipline  ia 
mere  derision  and  mockery,  might  become  free  from  its  bondage  as  a  civic  institu- 
tion, and  so  no  longer  profane  it  and  their  souls  by  clandestinely  violating  it.  But 
as  for  me,  I  will  abide  in  my  chains. 

2.  I  don't  find  that  there  is  any  particular  manhood,  if  by  manhood  merit  is 
meant,  in  this  decision  of  mine ;   for  I  have  been  becoming  aware  all  along  of  a 


Love^  3Iurrlugc,  and  Divorce.  95 

much  (Ifejior  ilivinily  in  my  wife  than  I  discerned  in  her  U'fore  marriage. 
The  divinity  slie  reveiilcd  to  me  then  addressed  itself  to  my  sensea,  and  fed  me  fat 
with  the  hope  of  being  selfishly  aggrandized  by  it.  The  divinity  she  now  reveaU 
is  the  very  opposite  of  ever}'thing  I  find  in  myself.  It  is  gentle  where  I  am  tur- 
bulent, modest  where  I  am  exacting,  yielding  where  I  am  obstinate,  full  of  patience 
where  I  am  full  of  self-will,  activu  where  I  am  slothful,  cheerful  where  I  am  moo<ly, 
unconscious  where  I  am  morbidly  conscious ;  in  short,  it  is  a  divinity  infinitely  re- 
mote from  my  own  petty  self,  and  yet  a  divinity  in  my  verj'  nature,  so  that  I  can't 
help  becoming  aroused  to  the  meaning  at  last  of  living  worship,  worship  con- 
secrated by  death  to  self.  I  see  that  there  was  no  other  way  for  the  Divine  to  get 
hold  of  me,  at  all  events,  but  by  first  binding  me  in  sensuous  love  to  this  noble 
woman,  and  then  letting  into  my  interiors  from  the  camera  obsrura  of  her  f>cr8on 
the  accommodated  blaze  of  His  eternal  purity  and  l)eauty,  that  I  might  see  myself 
at  last  as  I  truly  am,  and  know  Ilim,  therefore,  evermore,  past  all  misapprehension, 
as  my  sole  light  and  life.  Thus  marriage  is  to  me  my  truest  divine  revelation.  I 
should  simply  have  gone  to  hell  long  ago  if  my  wife  had  not  saved  me,  not  by  any 
conscious  or  voluntary  doing  on  her  part  (for  if  she  had  attempted  anything  of 
that  sort  she  would  have  damned  me  past  all  chance  of  redemption);  no,  far  from 
it;  but  by  unconsciously  being  the  pure,  good,  modest  woman  she  is.  She  was 
mine  by  legal  right,  and  yet  she  was  by  nature  totally  opposite  to  all  I  call  me. 
What  then?  Shall  I  renounce  marriage,  call  it  a  snare  and  a  cheat,  and  abandon 
myself  to  concubinage  instead?  Or  shall  I  accept  it  as  a  divine  boon,  —  the  divin- 
est  boon  imaginable  to  our  race,  —  and  so  find  myself  no  longer  debasing  women 
to  my  level, —  the  level  of  my  selfish  lusts, — but  elevated  gradually  and  surely  to 

the  height  of  her  natural  truth  and  purity The  end  of  marriage  as  a  civic 

institution  is  the  family.  But  the  family  is  now  blocking  the  way  of  society,  which 
is  God's  family,  and  marriage  consequently,  being  no  longer  necessary  to  Ik?  rigor- 
ously administered  as  of  old  in  the  service  of  the  family,  must  consent  to  bo 
ailministered  in  the  interest  of  society,  —  that  is,  must  be  relieved  by  greater  free- 
dom  of  divorce.  II.  J. 


90  Love,  Jlfarriage,  and  Divorce. 


XVI. 

A  LETTER  FROM  H.  Y.  R.  TO  MR.  ANDREWS. 

My  dear  sir: 

I  inclose  a  newspaper  slip  of  a  letter  published  in  a  late  issue  of  the  St.  Paul 
"Press,"  in  which  you  will  readily  recognize  the  ear-marks  of  your  old  antagonist 
of  twenty  odd  years  ago,  Henry  James,  of  Newport. 

I  feel  assured  that  Mr.  James  is  laboring  under  a  misconception  of  the  motive 
which  animates  the  "free-lover"  in  assailing  our  present  cruel  marriage  laws,  and 
is  thus  led  to  misstate  the  issue.  He  is  equally  earnest  in  his  desire  for  the  eman- 
cipation of  woman,  and  his  vehement  rhetoric  has  demonstrated  on  numberless 
occasions  that  the  legal  tyranny  of  marriage  serves  only  to  embitter  and  defile  its 
otherwise  sweet  and  wholesome  waters.  But  he  assumes  that  the  hostility  of  the 
teclinical  free-lover  is  based  on  a  totally  different  motive  from  his  own ;  that  it  is  a 
supremely  selfish  one,  wholly  in  the  interest  of  his  organic  appetites  and  passions. 
As  well  might  he  assume  that  the  effort  to  relieve  the  hard  conditions  of  prison-life 
was  made  in  the  interest  of  thievery,  and  insist  that  anyone  advocating  such  ame- 
lioration afforded  instant  evidence  that  he  was  a  thief,  or  at  least  was  calculating 
the  risks  involved  in  some  scheme  of  private  plunder.  To  make  good  his  position, 
it  is  incumbent  on  Mr.  James  to  show  that  the  men  and  women  known  as  "tech- 
nical free-lovers  "  are,  practically,  libertines,  debauchees,  and  harlots ;  are  lecherous, 
libidinous  persons,  who  shamelessly  "  obey  the  voice  of  passion  in  preference  to  the 
voice  of  conscience."  This  is  a  task  from  which  Mr.  James  would  slirink  with  un- 
feigned abhorrence,  but  I  see  no  other  m  eans  by  which  he  can  vindicate  his  claim 
to  candor  and  sober  truth. 

I  have  read  the  writings  of  Mrs.  Woodhull,  and  heard  her  deliver  her  lectures; 
have  read  the  current  literature  of  the  free  -love  movement  these  twenty  years  or 
more;  and — while  meeting  with  much  that  was  repulsive  and  reprehensible  —  I  am 
satisfied  that  the  settlement  of  the  question  of  .social  freedom  involves  issues  of  im- 
measurable value  to  the  race,  and  invites  the  effort  of  every  courageous  and  sincere 
man  and  woman;  and  I  am  also  satisfied  that,  while  a  large  proportion  of  the  in- 
dividuals who  have  espoused  this  unpopular  cause  exhibit  a  certain  unhandsome 
egotism,  and  po-;-;ess  perhaps  more  vigor  than  cultivation,  they  are  in  all  moral  re- 
gards neither  better  nor  worse  than  their  neighbors. 


But  I  fi'.ir  Mr.  J:iniPS  lias  cniifnun<le<l  soiin'  of  tin'  exuvia  of  this  now  truth  with 
tlu!  fair  promise  itself.     Tin;  new  truth  in  tran.xition  is  always  accouipaiiied  with 
irregular  and  .sporadic  njanifestation.     To  be  sure,  well-bred  people  do  not  want  to 
be  always  talking  about  their  .sexual  relation.s;  nor  will  they,  after  these  xu.C 
have  l)een  readju.sted.     Once  woman  is  emancipated  from  the  social  and  hou 
subjection  in  which  she  is  now  (in  a  great  mca-sure  uncotiKciou.sly)  hclil,  a  o- 
healing  influence  of  mo<lest  restraint  will    descend  from  woman  herself,  ami  ; 
turbulent  waves  of  public  discussion  concerning  a  domain  of  life  no  private  and 
sacred  will  subside   into  equable   relations  with  other  departments   of   human 
activity. 

Henry  James  sits  a  crowned  king  in  the  realm  of  metaphysics.  His  {M^netration 
is  something  marvelous.  His  admirers  become  enthusia>ts  and  (h-clare  that  In* 
alone  of  all  men  living  is  entitled  to  the  nanw  of  pliilosoph<T.  Time  and  hpar«! 
confess  themselves  mere  .shams,  and  the  material  universe  fades  out  of  mind  under 
the  matchless  power  of  his  analysis;  the  innermost  mysteries  of  being  unfold  them- 
selves, fall  into  order  and  method,  and  ultimate  in  worlds  and  pa.vsionate  imman 
hearts  as  a  matter  of  course;  history  is  illuminated,  and  the  splendid  <ie»tinv  of 
the  race  is  forecjist  with  overwhelming  certainty.  Hut  in  the  midst  of  all  this,  or 
perhaps  because  of  this,  one  detects  in  him  a  certain  inability  to  coihj  with  actual 
affairs  as  they  ari.se  in  the  ever-shifting  drama  of  life.  His  thought  turns  back 
upon  itself  when  it  comes  in  contact  with  the  raw  edge  of  things.  And  I  hold  that 
in  this  letter  he  has  spoken  unwi.sely ;  he  has  made  his  point,  but  it  is  at  the  exjien.so 
of  his  own  candor  and  magnanimity.  He  perceives  the  stupendous  frauds  w<«  suf* 
fer  in  our  social  relations,  —  none  more  clearly;  and  he  with  us  is  moved  to  attack; 
but,  while  the  common  instinct  of  outraged  justice  urges  the  rough  on.wt  with 
whatever  bludgeon  lies  at  hand,  he  is  dismayed  at  the  turmoil  and  confusion,  and 
puts  up  his  keen  and  highly-tempered  blade  in  disgust,  confessing  that  he  has  no 
stomach  for  the  fight.     Ilinc  illct  lacnjmce.  H.  Y.  II. 


98  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 


XVII. 


COMMENTS  BY  MR.  ANDREWS. 


Henry  James  has,  in  a  high  degree,  the  rare  qualities  assigned  to  him  by  H.  Y. 
II.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  his  persistent  misrepresentation  of  the  doctrine  of 
free  love?  It  is  astounding  that  a  man  of  his  intelligence  can  write  such  balder- 
dash. The  fact  argues  either  a  crass  and  chronic  stupidity  on  the  subject,  on  his 
part,  or  else  that  he  is  wilfully  bearing  false  witness  against  his  neighbor.  He  as- 
serts, not  as  his  opinion,  but  ex  cathedra,  and  as  the  undoubted  fact,  that  the  free 
love  doctrinaires  demand  that  the  flesh  shall  be  supreme;  that  free  lovers  are 
fleshly-minded  or  lecherous  people,  ignoring  or  subordinating  the  spiritual  element 
of  man's  nature;  that  they  are  chimpanzees,  brute  beasts,  etc.,  etc.  The  free  lovers 
have  never  said  so.  They  have  merely  asserted  the  law  of  individual  freedom,  in- 
stead of,  or  in  predominance  over,  social  constraint,  as  the  safer  and  better  medium 
through  which  to  conduct  to  the  higher  development  of  mankind.  They  are  a  set 
of  social  philosophers  who  have  arrived  at  this  degree  of  spiritual  insight  into 
causes,  and  of  faith  in  the  self-regulative  powers  of  freedom,  in  the  place  of  regu- 
lations imposed  from  without.  They  may  be  right  or  wrong  in  this  assurance, 
but,  if  wrong,  it  is  on  the  side  of  spiritual  elevation.  It  is  because  the  God  within 
them  denies  the  necessity  any  longer  of  outward  constraint  and  discipline  to  lift 
them  to  the  highest  social  and  spiritual  conditions.  It  is  surprising  that  Mr. 
James  should  not  sufficiently  well  understand  the  working  of  spiritual  laws  to 
know  that  in  charging  on  others  the  predominance  of  low  and  animal  desires  and 
manifestations  simply  because  they  demand  a  free  field  to  live  their  own  true  lives, 
he  convicts  them  of  nothing,  while  he  implicitly  confesses  that  he  is  such,  and  that 
he  would  habitually  so  manifest  himself,  if  outward  constraint  were  not  so  laid 
upon  him;  in  other  words,  that  he,  individually,  is  still  a  chimpanzee  and  nothing 
else,  except  in  so  far  as  outward  social  and  legal  constraint,  coupled  with  domestic 
discipline,  compel  him  to  the  exhibition  of  an  outward  decency;  with  some  promise, 
withal,  that,  by  the  continuance  of  these  ministrations,  he  may  at  some  future  day 
be  developed  into  the  higher  sort  of  humanity,  upon  the  spiritual  plane. 

But,  if  there  is  this  hope  of  a  better  result  in  the  future,  even  in  his  case,  it  may 
be  that  other  individuals,  with  a  better  nature  from  superior  inherited  conditions 
and  other  causes,  may  long  since  have  attained  to  that  higher  state  in  which  they 


Love^  Marruifje,  and  Divorce.  99 

are  justified  in  claiming  to  he  a  law  unto  themselvts,  and  to  be  exempt  from  dbcip- 
lines  which  they  or  their  ancestors  may  have  had  enough  of,  and  which  are  now 
only  hindrances  for  them,  however  necessary  they  may  still  be  for  less  iirojjressive 
individualities.  Mr.  James  and  a  large  class  which  he  re|)re»cnt8  may  still  nee<l  a 
course  of  domestic  infelicities,  and,  if  I  could  accommodate  them  at  the  sann*  time, 
I  would  even  be  willing  that  the  dose  should  1)0  increased  in  size  and  frequency: 
but  that  is  no  good  reason  why  those  who  never  had  or  have  recovered  from  the 
chimpanzee  disease  should  be  required  to  go  through,  again  and  again,  the  same 
purgation. 

I  wonder  whether  it  ever  really  did  occur  to  Mr.  Henry  James  and  those  of  that 
ilk  that  possibly  there  may  be  men  and  women  in  the  world  who  are  l)uilt  on  a 
higher  plane,  or  may  have  attained  to  a  higher  plane,  spiritually,  than  any  that  he 
and  they  have  yet  attained  to;  instead  of  uniformly  a.ssuming  that,  if  anybody  dif- 
fers from  them  and  their  personal  standards,  he  must  necessarily  be  on  a  lower 
plane  of  development.  But  Swedenborg,  Mr.  James's  supreme  channel  of  spiritual 
wisdom,  rightly  no  doubt  says  that  an  angel,  lifted  into  a  higher  heaven  than  that 
where  he  resides,  sees  nothing.  Stephen  Peahl  Anduews. 


100  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce. 


xvm. 

LETTER  FROM  MB.  JAMES  TO  MR.  ANDREWS. 

S.  p.  Andrews,  Esq.: 

Dear  Sir,  —  My  letter  of  December,  1872,  was  not  designed  for  publication,  as 
is  obvious  upon  the  face  of  it,  and  I  regret  that  my  friend  Mr.  R.  should  have 
been  so  inconsiderate  as  to  print  it  without  consulting  me.  Had  it  been  intended 
for  publication,  I  should  have  modified  its  phraseology  in  more  than  one  respect. 
It  was  written  in  the  confidence  of  friendship,  and  betrays  a  latitude  of  expression 
permissible  only  to  such  confidence.  My  sole  conscious  purpose  in  writing  it  was 
to  characterize  two  rival  doctrines,  and  I  should  have  abhorred  to  reflect  injuriously 
upon  the  supporters  of  either  doctrine,  least  of  all  the  unfashionable  one.  For 
while  multitudes  of  equally  sincere  people  may  be  found  doubtless  arrayed  on 
either  side  of  this  controversy,  there  can  be  just  as  little  doubt  that  sincerity  in 
your  direction  costs  a  good  deal  of  thoughtless  opprobrium,  while  in  mine  it  wins  a 
good  deal  of  equally  thoughtless  popular  applause ;  and  sincerity  that  forfeits  one's 
personal  consideration  will  always  argue  a  higher  manhood  than  sincerity  that  at- 
tracts it.  It  is  more  than  a  duty,  it  is  a  pleasure,  to  admit  all  this ;  but  I  repeat 
that  my  difference  with  you  is  primarily  intellectual  and  only  derivatively  personal. 

Your  doctrine  —  if  I  understand  it — is  twofold,  namely:  First,  that  men  are  de 
jure  exempt  from  outward  liability,  which  is  liability  to  other  men,  for  the  indul- 
gence of  their  appetites  and  passions;  Second,  that  they  are  de  facto  exempt  from 
all  inward  liability  for  such  indulgence,  or  liability  to  their  own  distinctive  nature 
as  men.  In  other  words,  you  hold  that  I  am  not  only  under  no  conventional  ob- 
ligation to  control  my  passions,  no  obligation  imposed  by  outward  law,  but  also 
under  no  natural  obligation  to  that  effect,  no  obligation  imposed  by  my  essential 
human  quality.  To  say  all  in  a  word:  You  hold  man  to  be  his  own  law  in 
respect  to  his  passions,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  his  actions :  provided  of  course  that 
he  doesn't  wound  his  own  ideal,  or  violate  good  taste. 

(1)  Thus  your  doctrine  has  both  a  negative  or  implicit  force,  as  addressed  to 
the  making  marriage  free  by  progressively  enlarging  the  grounds  of  divorce ;  and 
(2)  a  positive  or  explicit  force,  as  addressed  to  the  making  love  free  by  denying  its 
essential  subordination  to  marriage. 

Now,  I  wholly  agree  with  your  doctrine  on  its  negative  merits,  or  in  so  far  as  it 


Jl 


Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce.  101 

teaches  man's  rightful  insubjeclion  to  other  men  (1) ;  and  I  wholly  disagree  with  it 
on  its  positive  merits,  or  in  so  far  as  it  teaches  his  actual  superiority  to  his  own 
nature  (2). 

(1)  First  as  to  the  point  in  which  we  are  agreed.  I  am  not  responsible  to  my 
fellow-man  for  the  exercise  of  my  appetites  and  passions,  because  on  my  passive 
side,  the  side  of  appetite  and  passion,  I  am  not  free,  but  in  palpable  bondage  to 
my  constitutional  necessities,  to  my  finite  organization,  or  my  mineral,  vegetable, 
and  animal  subsistence.  And  responsibility  is  the  attribute,  not  of  a  bondman, 
but  a  freeman.  I  remain  doubtless  for  a  long  while  unconscious  of  my  bondage, 
because  in  the  infancy  of  my  career  I  have  at  most  only  a  traditional  and  not  an 
experimental  knowledge  of  my  true  spirituality  of  nature,  and  hence  am  sure  to 
identify  myself  with  my  organization,  or  look  upon  its  proper  life  as  my  own. 
But  my  intellectual  day  does  eventually  break,  and  1  then  perceive  with  mingled 
awe  and  disgust  that  what  I  had  hitherto  reckoned  to  be  freedom  and  life  w;ls  all 
the  while  a  cunningly  disguised  slavery  and  death.  The  truth  is  so,  however, 
whether  I  perceive  it  or  not.  I  am  outwardly  free  only  to  act,  not  to  suffer  or  to  be 
acted  upon;  so  far  accordingly  as  I  am  a  subject  of  this  latter  or  passive  freedom, 
this  freedom  to  suffer  or  to  be  acted  upon,  my  life  is  not  outwardly  but  altogether  in- 
wardly constituted  or  energized,  and  disdains  any  outward  responsibility.  Thus  I 
may  experience  love  to  any  extent  my  temperament  enjoins  or  allows  ;  but  so  long 
as  I  commit  no  overt  act  of  hostility  to  marriage,  no  one  has  a  particle  of  right  to 
complain  of  me.  To  the  entire  compass  of  my  passionate  life  or  organization  I  am 
the  subject,  not  of  any  outward  or  moral  law,  but  of  an  inward  or  spiritual  law 
exclusi\ely,  a  law  which  is  one  with  my  race  or  nature,  and  determines  all  the  is- 
sues of  my  destiny;  and  however  properly  therefore  it  may  upon  occasion  subject 
me  to  my  own  unfavorable  judgment,  it  at  all  events  renders  me  superior  to  the 
judgments  of  other  people. 

And  this  brings  us  to  our  point  of  disagreement. 

(2)  I  am  outwardly  free  to  act,  for  my  physical  organization  and  environment 
render  me  so;  and,  being  free,  I  am  properly  responsible  to  others  for  the  use  I 
make  of  my  freedom  in  their  direction.  They  accordingly  insist  that  I  exercise 
ray  freedom  of  action  within  the  limits  of  a  discreet  regard  to  their  persons  and 
property,  under  pain  of  forfeiting  their  good  will,  or  incurring  their  acute  resent- 
ment. Thus  my  freedom  of  action  is  essentially  limitary,  not  absolute.  It  is 
limited  by  my  sense  of  justice,  conunonly  called  conscience,  or  the  sentiment  of 
duty  I  feel  toward  my  fellow-men.  Q'he  liujitation  is  often  practically  inconvenient, 
is  often  indeed  very  painful;  but  it  can  be  persistently  resisted  only  at  the  cost  of 
my  spiritual  manhood,  only  at  the  cost  of  my  personal  degradation  below  the  level 
not  merely  of  human  but  of  brute  nature,  and  my  assimilation  to  devils. 

Evidently,  then,  my  personal  freedom  —  my  freedom  of  action  —  is  not  in  itself  a 
thing  to  bo  proud  of.     It  is  at  best  a  purely  finite  —  thai  is  to  sav,  moral  t  v  vol 


102  Love^  31arria(j€^  and  Divorce. 

untary — freedom,  consisting  in  my  ability  to  obey  or  disobey  an  outward  law,  and 
realize,  if  I  please,  a  certain  mid-career,  a  certain  earthly  success,  in  conciliating 
the  warring  extremes  of  heaven  and  hell,  or  duty  and  inclination;  and  its  ideal 
consequently  in  human  character  is  prudence  or  worldly  wisdom.  Now,  how  do 
you  account  for  this  inveterate  finiteness  of  the  human  personality?  Why  should 
my  personal  freedom,  my  conscious  selfhood,  confess  this  essentially  limitary  qual- 
ity? The  fact  seems  to  me  wholly  unaccountable  but  in  one  way,  and  that  is  on 
the  principle  that  my  personal  life  or  consciousness  is  essentially  subservient  to  a 
higher  because  spiritual  or  divine  life  in  my  nature  identical  with  what  we  call 
SOCIETY  among  men;  and  is  contingent  therefore  for  its  character  upon  the  mear 
sure  of  practical  obedience  or  disobedience  I  pay  to  the  social  spirit.  I  call  this 
higher  life  God's  life  in  my  nature,  as  opposed  to  the  life  I  feel  in  myself  and  call 
mine,  because  I  manage  to  realize  the  one  only  in  so  far  as  I  mortify  the  other. 
That  is  to  say,  I  give  up  my  outward  life  or  freedom,  which  is  my  freedom  to  act 
from  myself  as  a  centre,  or  to  consult  only  what  makes  for  my  worldly  welfare,  and 
I  find  as  I  do  so  an  inward  life  —  a  spiritual  freedom  —  making  itself  over  to  me, 
which  is  unspeakably  satisfying,  which  is  in  fact  so  unlike  everything  I  have  hith- 
erto called  my  life  that  I  cannot  help  pronouncing  it  literally  divine  and  in- 
finite. I  dare  not  call  this  life  mine  of  course  any  more  than  yours,  since  it  is  a  life 
in  om*  nature  exclusively,  and  not  in  ourselves;  and  yet  it  is  so  intimately  near  and 
precious  to  me  as  to  make  my  own  proper  life  (and  yours)  seem  utterly  worthless 
and  odious  in  the  comparison. 

Now  what  is  the  warp  upon  which  this  life  of  God  in  our  nature  —  that  is,  in  you, 
and  me,  and  all  men  quite  equally  —  is  woven?  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say :  the  waq) 
of  suffering.  Not  voluntary  suffering,  or  suffering  for  suffering's  sake,  of  course, 
which  is  mere  hypocritical  or  dramatic  suffering,  — the  base  counterfeit  coin  of  the 
flesh  which  the  Roman  Catholic  or  other  pietist  pays  to  his  idol  in  lieu  of  the  pure 
gold  of  the  spirit,  when  he  would  inspire  it  with  a  favorable  conceit  of  his  own 
merit,  —  but  rational  or  helpless  suffering,  originating  in  what  used  to  be  called  a 
conscience  of  sin,  meaning  thereby  a  hearty  contempt  of  one's  self,  and  inflamed 
by  the  endless  labor  it  costs  to  get  away  from  that  self,  or  live  down  the  monstrous 
superstition  of  a  possible  personal  worth  or  private  righteousness  in  us. 

Of  course  every  one  must  here  bear  witness  for  himself  alone.  We  are  now  deal- 
ing with  the  realm  of  onr  inward  being — of  our  true  freedom  or  individuality  — 
where  we  dwell  in  direct  contact  with  the  highest,  and  disallow  all  mediation. 
But  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  for  myself  that  I  experimentally  know  no  freedom 
but  that  which  is  here  indicated  as  pure  human,  being  a  freedom  of  illimitable  in- 
ward disgust  with  my  own  and,  if  need  be,  every  man's  personal  pretensions.  I 
relish  my  moral  or  outward  freedom,  my  freedom  of  finite  action,  as  much  as  any 
man.  I  relish  it  «o  very  much  indeed  that  I  doubt  not  it  would  soon  run  my  head 
in  to  a  noose,  if  it  were  not  perpetually  belied  by  this  more  living  or  spiritual  free- 


Love^  Jtfarriaf/e,  and  Divorce.  103 

dom  within.  The  two  things  cauuot  co-exist  in  the  same  bosom  but  as  substance 
and  sliadow,  life  and  death.  The  one  sensibly  finites  me,  the  other  expands  my 
consciousness  to  infinitude.  The  more  I  prize  my  moral  freedom,  or  freedom  of 
outward  action,  and  identify  myself  with  it,  the  more  my  life  is  finited  or  concen- 
tred upon  my  petty  person.  The  more  I  prize  my  spiritual  freedom,  or  freedom 
of  inward  reaction,  and  practically  identify  myself  with  it,  the  niore  my  life  is  in- 
finited  or  socialized,  until  at  last  it  becomes  so  transti};ured  into  universal  dimen- 
sions as  to  make  mc  feel  myself  almost  sensibly  blent  with  the  life  of  my  race  or 
nature,  which  is  God. 

Understand  me.  The  distinctive  badge  of  our  nature  hitherto  has  been  passion, 
not  action,  suffering,  not  enjoyment,  in  order  to  base  a  truly  human  consciuu^uess 
in  us,  or  separate  us  from  the  animal.  Rather  let  me  say  it  h;LS  Ijeen  action  in- 
spired by  suffering,  since  our  natural  infinitude  or  divinity  has  bt-en  almost  wholly 
swamped  in  our  mineral,  vegetable,  and  animal  beginnings,  ami  has  only  come  to 
consciousness  in  the  person  of  one  man  in  history,  who  yet  realized  in  such  ampli- 
tude its  power  to  sanctify  all  men  that  ho  could  say  to  a  petty  thief  who  shared  liis 
cross:  This  day  shall  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise.  In  short,  passionate  and  not  ra- 
tional action  has  been  the  inevitable  law  of  human  life,  the  in<lis|H.'n.sable  condition 
of  its  eventual  extrication  from  the  mud  and  slime  of  its  finite  maternity.  Thus 
no  man  has  been  great  in  history,  with  a  truly  human  greatness,  who  has  not  won 
his  way  to  it  through  suffering;  that  is,  by  painfully  subjugating  the  rampant  hell 
of  his  merely  personal  ambition  and  aspiration  to  a  tranquil  inward  lieaven  of  just 
and  equal  relations  with  his  fellow-man.  And  to  be  blind  to  this  great  fact  is  to 
be  blind  in  my  opinion  to  the  total  divine  worth  and  significance  of  human  nature. 

Now  it  is  precisely  here  as  it  seems  to  me  that  your  doctrine  avouches  its  signal 
incompetency  as  a  law  of  human  life.  The  doctrine  stamps  itself  indeed  funda- 
mentally vicious,  in  that  it  utterly  ignores  this  profound  subserviency  which  what 
is  j)ersonal  or  particular  in  us  has  always  been  under  to  what  is  human  or  uni- 
versal; and  so  practically  subverts  our  natural  dignity,  or  declares  it  undivine. 
You  conceive — such  at  least  is  the  logic  of  your  position  —  that  our  apj>etites  and 
passions  are  a  direct  divine  boon  to  us,  intended  to  enhance  our  jwrsonal  enjoyment 
and  power,  and  to  that  extent  relieve  our  existing  prison-house  of  its  gloom.  I 
deny  this  with  all  my  heart.  I  am  persuaded  that  they  are  given  to  us  in  no  posi- 
tive interest  whatever,  as  they  are  given  for  example  to  the  animal  to  constitute 
his  feeble  all,  but  in  a  distinctly  netjative  interest,  or  with  a  view  to  disgust  us  with 
our  prison-house,  or  finite  heritage,  and  stimulate  us  to  demand  a  new  l>irth  more 
consonant  with  our  spiritual  or  race  tra<litions.  Thus  I  can't  for  the  life  of  mo 
figure  to  myself  what/rc«  lace  means,  unless  it  bo  o\w  of  two  things:  cither,  1.  A 
freedom  to  love  promiscuously,  which  is  a  mere  speculative  freedom  equivalent  to 
lust,  and  therefore  disowned  by  the  universal  human  heart;  or  else  '2.  A  freedom 
to  desecrate  love,  or  reduce  it  to  animal  proportions,  by  divesting  it  of  an  exclu- 


104  Love^  JIarrla(/e,  and  Divorce. 

sively  marriage-hallowing.  But  no  man,  least  of  all  a  man  of  your  great  sense  and 
decency,  will  contend  for  the  former  alternative;  so  that  the  latter  alone  needs  to 
be  considered. 

Now,  if  by  freedom  of  love  you  mean  emancipation  from  marriage  constraint, 
you  compel  me  to  regard  your  use  of  the  word  love  as  symbolical  merely,  and  to 
view  the  word  itself  as  meaning  substantially  hell.  I  hope  you  will  not  deem  me 
silly  enough  to  suppose  that  I  thus  stigmatize  your  doctrine  to  any  good  man's 
regard.  On  the  contrary,  I  am  only  making  an  honest  attempt  intellectually  to 
characterize  it;  and  as  by  the  marriage-love  of  the  sexes  heaven  has  always  been 
appropriately  symbolized  to  the  intellect,  so  I  take  no  liberty  with  thought  in  say- 
ing that  hell  is  no  less  appropriately  symbolized  by  love  as  opposed  to  marriage. 
I  repeat,  then,  that/ree  love,  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  marriage,  means  to  the  phi- 
losophic imagination  free  hell,  neither  more  nor  less.  Free  hell,  it  is  true,  —  which 
is  a  greatly  improved  aspect  of  the  subject,  —  but  still  hell,  and  not  by  any  means 
either  earth  or  heaven.  It  is  this  fact  alone  as  it  seems  to  me  which  supplies  the 
philosophy  of  the  free-love  agitation,  and  redeems  it  from  an  otherwise  utter  tri- 
viality. Free  love  is  only  the  shibboleth  of  the  movement,  only  the  specious 
battle-cry  under  which  its  shadowy  cohorts  are  being  marshalled  for  the  final  field 
of  Armageddon.  But,  viewed  under  the  surface,  it  is  a  surging  up  of  great  hell  it- 
self into  the  current  of  our  daily  life,  to  become  henceforth  an  acknowledged  factor 
in  human  affairs,  or  to  be  reckoned  with  no  longer  as  a  suppressed  and  disreput- 
able, but  as  an  every  way  free  and  respectable  force  in  our  nature. 

You  pay  me  the  somewhat  dubious  compliment  of  calling  Swedenborg  ray  foun- 
tain of  wisdom.  I  flatter  myself  that  the  fountain  in  question  is  somewhat  more 
highly  placed.  I  am  quite  sure  at  all  events  that  Swedenborg's  stately  wig  would 
rise  off  his  head  in  astonishment  and  awe  of  the  waters  that  flow  from  that  foun- 
tain. Swedenborg  is  not  the  least  a  man  of  ideas,  but  eminently  a  man  oi  facts; 
and  if  any  one  goes  to  him  therefore  for  ideas  themselves,  and  not  for  the  mere 
raw  material  out  of  which  ideas  are  constituted,  he  will  be  sadly  disappointed. 
This  is  what  makes  Swedenborg  at  once  the  most  unauthoritative  and  the  most 
instructive  of  writers,  —  that  he  has  no  pretension  to  supply  his  readers  with  intel- 
ligence, but  only  with  facts,  which  nevertheless  are  a  sure  vehicle  of  intelligence 
to  every  one  who  knows  how  to  use  them.  Now,  altogether  the  most  impressive 
fact  I  find  in  Swedenborg  is  the  fact  of  the  Last  Judgment,  effected,  as  he  declares, 
more  than  a  century  ago  in  the  world  of  spirits,  and  resulting  in  the  complete 
practical  effacement  of  the  old  antagonism  of  heaven  and  hell,  and  their  joint  and 
equal  subjugation  henceforth  to  the  evolution  and  uses  of  a  new  manhood  on  earth, 
at  once  natural  and  spiritual,  or  finite  and  infinite,  which  he  calls  a  Z)u-me-natural 
manhood,  and  represents  to  have  been  the  sole  creative  and  the  sole  formative 
force  in  our  history. 

Now,  if  this  Last  Judgment  of  Swedenborg's  be  a  fact  of  our  spiritual  or  race- 


Love^  Marriarje^  and  iJlcorce.  lOo 

history,  and  the  elements  of  good  and  evil  in  our  nature  have  become  actually  re- 
conciled in  a  new  divine  manhood,  have  become  actually  fused,  blent,  or  married 
in  a  new  or  divine-huraan  life  on  earth,  what  can  worthily  expresa  this  grand  sjii- 
ritual  achievement  in  our  nature  but  society  f  Society  then  is  the  true  form  of 
human  destiny.  And  if  society  itself  be  a  marriage  of  good  and  evil,  of  spirit  and 
llesh,  of  heaven  and  hell,  consummated  in  the  divine  heart  of  our  nature,  why 
should  not  hell  declare  itself  free  of  heaven,  or  love  declare  itself  free  of  the  purelv 
enforced  bondage  it  has  hitherto  been  under  to  marriage?  How  indee<l  can  it  htlp 
doing  so?  The  slave,  in  disavowing  his  coerced  bondage  to  his  master,  does  not 
refuse  him  a  spontaneous  loyalty  on  occasion.  And  love,  in  refusing  a  constrained 
homage  to  marriage,  will  not  deny  itself  the  honor  and  advantage  of  a  spontaneous 
adhesion.  Society,  when  once  it  is  fairly  established  to  men's  recognition  as  the 
sole  law  of  their  origin  and  destiny,  as  the  sole  divine  justification  of  their  past 
disreputable  existence,  will  exhibit  or  express  a  perfect  reconciliation  of  our  most 
finite  or  personal  necessities  with  our  most  free  or  spiritual  and  infinite  a.'^pira- 
tions.  But  that  is  only  saying  in  other  words  that  man's  life,  whether  inward  or 
outward,  whether  celestial  or  infernal,  will  then  be  no  longer  moral  or  voluntary 
as  centred  primarily  in  self,  or  primarily  in  the  neighbor,  but  altogether  cesthetic 
or  spontaneous,  as  centred  in  self  and  the  neighbor  quite  equally.  And  when  the 
law  of  man's  life  thus  expresses  itself  no  longer  in  the  rugged  forms  of  duty,  but 
in  every  winning  form  of  delight,  the  lower  element  in  our  nature  will  be  found 
even  more  prompt  to  its  social  allegiance  than  the  superior  element.  Hell  in  that 
event,  as  a  recognized  factor  in  human  life,  coequal  with  heaven,  will  vindicate 
its  freedom  no  longer  by  voluntarily  deferring  to  heaven,  but  by  <loing  so  instinc- 
tively as  the  very  condition  of  its  subsistence;  for  reciprocal  deference  is  the 
life-blood  of  freemen.  Thus,  when  the  veriest  prudence  of  a  man,  or  his  inmost 
love  of  himself,  binds  him  to  society  as  the  law  of  his  being,  he  may  surely  be  al- 
lowed to  claim  what  freedom  in  love  he  pleases:  his  love  —  in  spite  of  liiinself,  if 
need  were — w^ill  evermore  strive  to  indue  itself  in  marriage  lineaments,  for  mar- 
riage is  both  the  substance  and  the  form  of  true  society,  and  nothing  derugatorj- 
to  the  marriage  spirit  can  subsist  in  it.  This  is  why  it  is  written:  "There  shall 
ill  no  trise  enter  into  it  anythinij  that  drjileth,  neither  anything  that  xcorkelh  abomination 
or  maketh  a  lie;  hut  they  which  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life." 

1  am,  dear  sir,  yours  very  truly,  «  Hkmiy  Jamks. 

Camubidge,  Mass.,  Apuil  1G. 


lOG  Love^  Marriage^  and  Divorce, 


XIX. 

COMMENTS  AND  RKl'LY  15V  Mil.  ANDREWS. 

Tho  courteous,  kindly,  and  generous  remarks  of  Mr.  James,  in  the  opening  of 
the  preceding  letter,  would  disarm  at  once  every  disposition  that  might  otherwise 
have  existed  toward  an  acrimon  ious  criticism  of  his  views.  It  is  far  more  con- 
genial to  my  feelings  to  enter  upon  the  ground  of  mutual  investigation  in  the 
common  field  of  the  search  after  truth,  than  to  be  bandying  plirases  or  hunting 
for  pungent  weapons  of  verbal  offence  to  be  hurled  at  a  supposed  enemy;  or  even 
to  be  training  the  heavy  artillery  of  a  crushing  logic  against  hostile  intrenchments. 
Still  I  do  not  propose  to  abandon  the  advantage  of  utter  frankness  which  the  past 
relations  of  Mr.  James  and  myself  have  authorized  between  us.  The  fortiter  in  re 
may,  I  hope,  be  retained  without,  hereafter,  any  sacrifice  of  the  suaviter  in  modo. 

It  is  a  task  of  no  little  difficulty  to  reply  ailequately  to  a  letter  of  this  kind. 
Apart  from  the  occult  nature,  broad  scope,  and  intrinsic  importance  of  the  subjects 
matter,  and  apart  from  the  eminent  ability  and  subtle  originality  of  Mr.  James  in 
the  treatment  of  whatever  subject  he  handles,  there  are  great  incidental  difficulties. 
His  points  of  view  are  so  transcendental  and  so  original  in  their  transcendental- 
ism, his  absence  of  preliminary  definitions  (for  example,  he  never  tells  us  what  fie 
means  by  marriage),  liis  assumption  of  a  scope  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  his 
readers  which  most  readers  are  destitute  of,  and,  finally,  his  novel  and  sometimes 
confusing  and  almost  blindingly  brilliant  individuality  of  style,  including  a  sys- 
tem of  technicalities  peculiarly  his  own,  conspire  to  make  a  tangled  mass  of  ob- 
stacle. He  is  one  of  the  easiest  of  writers  to  treat  adversely  and  to  put  conclusively 
Ml  the  wrong,  by  simply  assuming  that  he  means  what  other  mortals  would  mean 
by  the  use  of  the  same  language;  but  one  of  the  very  most  difficult  to  treat  can- 
didly, and  first  disinvolve,  and  then  estimate  fairly.  He  is  one,  therefore,  in  a 
sense,  whose  amity  is  more  to  be  dreaded  than  his  enmity.  He  needs  an  inter- 
preter when  he  addresses  himself  to  others  than  his  own  admiring  acolytes;  and  I 
could  wish  that  he  had  one  at  hand  in  whom  he  might  more  confidingly  rely  than 
in  me;  but,  under  the  circumstances,  I  must  occasionally  take  the  liberty  (and  I 
sincerely  apologize  for  doing  so)  of  restating  Mr.  James,  in  my  own  words,  for  the 
sake  of  my  readers,  or  of  saying  to  them,  in  other  language,  what  /  understand 
him  to  mean.     I  will  add,  however,  that  1  have  so  long  and  so  lovingly  pored  over 


Xoi'C,  Marriaye^  and  Divorce.  lOT 

his  writiugs,  and  have  been  myself  so  instructed  by  them,  that  I  feel  some  confi- 
dence in  my  ability  to  apprelicnd  him  rigiitly ;  and  that  I  hold  inys<-lf  complet<.-ly 
subject  to  his  correction  wherein  I  may  have  failed  to  du  so.  A  writer  who  talks 
of  freedom  to  suffer,  and  man's  actual  superiority  over  his  otcn  nature,  and  under- 
scores these  phrases  as  containing  the  gist  of  his  thought,  needs  as  fri«'n<lly  an  in- 
terpretation as  Christ's  words  when  ho  teaches  us  tu  hate  father  ami  mother  for  the 
truth's  sake.  Whosoever  wishes  to  understand  may  have  to  labor  hard  to  succeed; 
and  whosoever  wishes  to  cavil  may  readily  do  so. 

[I  also  take  the  liberty  to  insert  numbers  indicating  paragraphs  and  subjects  in 
Mr.  James's  letter  for  ease  of  reference.] 

The  second  branch  of  Mr.  James's  definition  of  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  doc- 
trine of  the  free  lovers,  what  he  calls  "our  point  of  disagreement,"  and  which  I 
have  marked,  where  it  is  severally  restated,  by  the  figure  (2),  is  that  they  —  that  I, 
for  example  —  hold  myself  "exenipt  from  all  inward  liability"  to  my  "own  distinc- 
tive nature  as  man"  for  the  use  f  make  of  my  passional  nature.  Now  what  he 
means  here  to  stato  I  take  to  be  tliat  he  supposes  mo  and  all  those  who  think  with 
me  on  thissubject  to  have  cast  oif  delil)erately  and  as  an  intellectual  conclusion  all 
deference  whatsoever  to  conscience,  to  our  sense  of  right,  or  of  inherent  and  essen- 
tial law  regulating  the  proprieties  of  conduct,  and  all  deference  to  the  needs  or  be- 
hests of  our  own  superior  spiritual  natures.  I  assure  our  readers  (his  and  mine), 
with  some  misgivings  as  to  their  ability  to  credit  me,  that  this  is  what  Mr.  James 
does  really  mean  to  say.  I  couKl  not  myself  Wlieve  it  ujxjn  the  strength  of  any 
single  formal  statement,  and  would  have  accepted  the  theory,  rather,  that  I  was 
dull  of  understanding  anil  did  not  comjirehend  him,  except  that  by  Ids  reiterations 
here,  and  by  recurring  to  his  more  elaborate  presentation  of  his  views  in  his  pre- 
viously published  letter,  I  am  con.strained  to  know  that  this  otherwise  sane  and 
even  wise  writer  and  thinker  does,  in  his  heart,  .euppase  that  bald  stultification  is 
the  characteristic  of  a  group  of  philosophers  who  are  not,  certainly,  in  other  re- 
spects, absolute  fools. 

It  was  this  sort  of  thing  which  in  my  previous  criliiiui-  1  denounctnl  as  balder- 
dash. I  take  back  the  offensive  word,  and  will  merely  say  that  any  such  supjxwi- 
tion  as  this  is  merely  a  figment  of  the  imagination  of  Mr.  James.  Nearly  everj 
word  he  utters  so  forcefully  and  cnaracteristically,  although,  sonietimes,  somewhat 
mystically,  of  the  normal  career  and  graduation  of  the  human  character  and  of 
society,  out  of  a  lower  and  .sensuous  life  into  a  higher  and  .'-piritual  life,  is  such 
that  I  entirely  accord  with  it,  affirm  it  in  my  teachings  fronj  time  to  time,  with  all 
the  powers  that  I  jHissess,  and  aim  to  ultimate  it  by  every  legitinuite  means  in  my- 
self, in  those  about  me,  and  in  smdety  at  large.  It  is  for  holding  and  promulgate 
ing  just  these  views  that  I  have,  in  the  midst  of  seeming  dissension  and  inability 
to  bo  niy.self  comprehended  by  nun,  ever  loved  and  cherished  the  iiol'le  ty|»»»of  p«T- 
Bonality  which  I  always  gladly  recognize  in  him, and  it  grieves  me  more  than  lean 


108  Ziovcj  MaiTiaffc,  and  Divorce. 

express  that  such  a  man,  and  with  otherwise  lofty  powers  of  comprehension,  could 
so  far  misapprehend  me  as  to  attribute  to  me  what  my  nature  would  prompt  me  to 
denounce  with  him  as  akin  to  a  doctrine  of  devils.  When  people  wilfully  misun- 
derstand me,  I  sometimes  take  no  pains  to  explain;  and  perhaps  1  have  even  at 
times  couched  my  doctrines  in  such  terms  that  ray  assailants  should  seem  to  be 
successfully  gratifying  their  malignity,  while  I  have  known  that  they  were  biting 
a  file  in  attacking  my  positions;  but  whenever,  as  now,  I  am  convinced  tliat  there 
is  an  honest  attribution  to  me  of  opinions  that  1  and  my  co-doctrinaires,  so  far  as  I 
know,  utterly  repudiate,  I  hasten  to  remove,  so  far  as  lieth  in  me,  every  possibility 
of  a  continued  misunderstanding. 

"VMiat  possible  ground  has  ^Ir.  James  or  anybody  for  assuming  that  I  or  any 
set  of  representative  free  lovers  have  ever  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  emancipation 
of  mankind  from  their  own  consciences,  from  the  sense  of  justice  toward  all  others,  or 
from  the  claims  of  their  own  higher  natures?  My  understanding  of  the  subjects  is 
that  they,  of  all  people,  are  precisely  the  champions  of  those  higher  mental  qualities 
and  states;  and  that,  if  they  sin  at  all,  it  is  in  their  readiness  to  trust  too  much  to 
the  elevating  and  regulative  potency  of  just  those  elements.  If  we  understand 
ourselves,  this  is  the  only  quarrel  we  have  with  the  community  at  large ;  and  we 
are  the  representative  people  of  just  those  things  which  Mr.  James  supposes  we 
ha"e  cast  overboard.  His  indictment  of  us  is  no  other  than  a  subtle  and  highly 
spiritualized  repetition  of  the  same  estimate  of  us  and  our  doctrines  which  the 
common  vulgar  herd  of  crude,  undeveloped,  and  themselves  merely  passionally  or- 
ganized people  attribute  to  us,  in  a  pm-ely  external  and  unspiritualized  way.  It 
holds  curiously  the  same  relation,  as  a  mistake,  to  the  common  vulgar  blunder  of 
the  people  which  Swedenborg's  and,  if  I  understand  him  aright,  Mr.  James's  idea 
of  marriage  holds  to  the  connnon  external  legal  understanding  of  it.  The  blunder 
of  the  vulgar  public,  partly  innocent  and  natural  misapprehension  and  partly 
malignant  perversion,  has  long  ceased  to  astonish  or  disturb  me;  but  the  rarefied 
and  attenuated  antl  transcendental  mistake  of  our  present  learned  and  acute  critic 
is  a  psychological  curiosity  on  the  one  hand  and,  on  the  other,  a  startling  surprise. 

Now,  the  doctrine  of  free  love  is  not  even  anti-marriage  in  the  external  or  legal 
sense  of  the  term,  any  more  than  the  doctrine  of  free  worship  in  our  churches  is 
anti-worship;  certainly,  therefore,  it  is  not  anti-marriage  in  respect  to  the  spiritual 
conception  of  marriage  entertained  by  Mr.  James.  It  is  simply  opposed  to  the 
legal  imposition  of  marriage  as  a  uniform  and  compulsory  mode  of  adjusting  the 
sexual  relations  of  society  and  may  be  said  perhaps  to  be  equally  opposed  to  the 
dogmatic  imposition,  u{)on  all  of  us,  of  precisely  Mr.  James's  idea,  or  anybody's 
idea  of  spiritual  marriage.  It  is  simply  and  wholly  the  doctrine  of  "hands  off," 
or  of  remitting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  to  the  parties  concerned;  of  freedom 
to  marry  externally  and  by  express  contract  for  those  who  desire  so  to  marry;  of 
freedom  to  be  married  ever  so  closely  and  exclusively,  in  the  spiritual  sense,  for 


JjQVCy   Mnrrlnrje^  and  Divorrf.  100 

those  wlio  l)elievo  in  it  and  desiro  it;  and  of  equal  fr«'cdom  for  those  who  believe 
ill  neither  to  regulate  their  love  relations  in  accordance  with  whatever  idea«  they 
do  entertain.  The  doctrine  pronoujices  absolutely  nothing  with  regard  to  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  any  of  those  ulterior  doctrines,  but  dimply  proliibits  the  in- 
terference of  aiiylK:)(ly  with  the  affairs  of  others,  in  this  resf>ect,  for  the  {iuri>ose  of 
enforcing  their  own  individual  or  collective  beliefs.  The  whole  doctrine  of  free 
love  is,  therefore,  rigorously  contained  in  what  Mr.  James  defines  aj»  the  negativ.* 
side  of  that  doctrine.  It  has  no  other  side  whatever;  and  upon  this  side  of  the 
subject  Mr.  James  affirms  that  lie  is  infinitely  in  accord  with  us.  The  other  side 
of  the  doctrine  —  what  ho  calls  the  positive  side,  and  attributes  to  us — is,  as  I 
have  previously  said,  purely  a  figment  of  his  own  imagination,  ami  wouhl  Ikj  a-s 
abhorrent  to  me,  if  I  recognized  it  aa  really  existing  anywhere,  as  it  is  or  can  be 
to  him. 

I  have  said  that  free  love  has  no  positive  side  in  Mr.  James's  sense.  It  is  a 
purely  negative  doctrine,  or  merely  the  doctrine  of  "hands  off."  This  is  as  true 
of  it  as  it  is  of  Protestantism,  which  is  negatively  a  denial  of  the  authority  of 
Home,  but  which  may  be  poxilively  slated  as  the  right  of  private  judgment  in  mat- 
ters of  conscience.  Every  negative  doctrine  or  doctrine  of  mere  freedom  may  J>o 
thus  counterstated  and  thrown  into  positive  form;  and,  in  that  sen.se,  free  love  may 
be  said  to  have  an  aflirmative  side  in  the  assertion  of  the  right  to  be  left  free;  but 
this  is  in  no  measure  what  ^Ir.  James  embraces  in  his  conception  of  the  positive 
side  of  the  doctrine,  which  is,  namely,  the  assertion  of  the  supremacy  of  the  lower 
'and  material  or  animal  nature  over  the  higher,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  nature, 
in  the  individual  and  in  society  at  large.  The  inversion  which  does  place  the 
lower  nature  above  I  abundantly  recognize  and  deplore  as  an  existent  fact  of  the 
world's  history  hitherto,  and  it  is  the  earnest  desire  to  remedy  that  inversion  which 
makes  nje  a  free  lover,  —  believing  that  the  complete  emanripation  of  woman  would 
tend  especially  in  that  direction;  but  fornmlated  as  a  doctrine,  and  put  forth  bv 
rational  thinkers  as  something  true  or  desirable,  I  have  never  met  with  it  any- 
where, and  am  not  aware  of  its  existence.  The  mere  assertion  of  the  right  of  the 
individual  to  decide  for  himself  whether  ho  will  suljordinate  love  to  marriage  or 
marriage  to  love,  is  neither  a  denying  nor  an  afiirming  of  the  essential  sul>ordina- 
tion  of  either  to  the  other.  It  is  simply  an  emancipation  of  them  both,  and  in 
equal  degree,  from  anybody's  dogmatic  and  authoritative  decision  of  that  question, 
and  is  fully  covered  by  that  which  Mr.  James  holds  in  common  with  us. 

I  have  said  that  on  the  whole  ground  really  covered  by  free  love  Mr.  James  an- 
nounces that  ho  is  in  full  accord  with  us.  But  even  here  ho  is  lal>oring  under 
some  nieasure  of  mistake.  He  nion?  than  accords  with  us.  He  overstates  the 
doctrine.  He  believes,  apparently,  in  an  unbounded  license  for  tho<*<'  who  are  un- 
der bondage  to  their  own  api>etites  and  pa-ssions,  and  holds  them  exempte<l  from 
all  responsibility,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  themselves  enslaved  to  those  ap- 


110  Love^  Marr'uifje,  and  Divorce. 

petites,  ami  are  not,  on  that  account,  responsible  and  accountal>U'  Imnian  beings. 
This  is  to  say  that  they  are  free,  and  to  be  left  free,  because  they  are  not  free, — 
H  doctrine  to  which  I  can  only  assent  in  a  transcendental,  ethical  sense.  This 
doctrine  of  freedom  without  limitations,  taken  as  a  basis  of  social  regulation,  sur- 
passes everything  that  free  lovers  contend  for.  The  doctrine  which  we  affirm  is, 
on  the  contrary,  a  doctrine  of  very  stringent  and  rigorous  limitations.  It  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  individual,  onlij  so  hug  as  he  does  not  encroach  upon 
the  equal  freedom  of  all  other  individuals.  This  doctrine,  which  is  feared  as  license, 
is,  when  examined,  found  to  be  a  tremendous  two-edged  sword;  inasmuch  as,  while 
it  confers  freedom  on  those  who  deserve  it,  it  authorizes  the  rigid  constraint  of 
just  these  inferior  natures  who  are  not  entitled  to  it;  for  it  is  they,  chiefly,  who 
are  prone  to  encroach,  and  to  endeavor  to  enforce  their  vieus  and  desires  upon  others. 
Just  those  persons,  therefore,  who,  ^Ir.  James  says,  with  a  certain  etliical  truth- 
fulness, are  not  responsible,  are  those  whom  our  doctrine  holds  to  a  rigorous  ac- 
countability. The  doctrine  which  we  propound  seems  to  the  thoughtless  to  be  a 
iloctrine  of  license;  but  it,  in  fact,  tenders  freedom  only  upon  terms  with  which 
none  but  the  very  most  progressed  natures  are  competent  to  comply:  upon  the 
terms,  namely,  of  a,  profound  and  reverential  r<  yard  for  the  fretdum  if  all  others  who 
in  turn  do  not  encroach ;  and  the  same  doctrine  authorizes  the  most  rigorous  calling 
to  account  and  the  most  desperate  fighting,  if  need  be,  in  respect  to  all  those  who 
fail  to  come  up  to  the  high  demands  of  this  chivalric  code  of  mutual  peace  and 
amity.  Mr.  James's  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  as  loosely  stated  by  him,  I  should 
pronounce  to  be  a  doctrine  of  real  license  or  authorized  licentiousness,  if  I  did  not 
bear  in  mind  that  he  is  hardly  ever  engaged  in  discussing  the  civil  and  practical 
and  sociological  questions  about  which  we  are  talking,  and  that  he  is,  as  it  were, 
hurried  away,  even  when  he  attempts  politico-social  and  sociological  matters,  by 
the  impetuosity  and  soaring  of  his  genius  into  the  empyrean  heights  of  purely 
transcendental  ethics.  Freedom  with  him  does  not  here  mean  therefore  the  free- 
dom of  the  citizen  at  all ;  and  what  he  says  would  not  have  the  slightest  practical 
bearing  upon  the  methods  of  treating  ignorant  and  aggressive  offenders;  but  he 
means,  I  suppose,  freedom  and  bondage  in  a  strictly  metaphysical  sense  as  affect- 
ing the  will. 

This  whole  lower  stage  of  the  evolution  of  mind,  in  which  the  appetites  and  pas- 
sions are  dominant  and  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  nature  undeveloped,  is  what 
I  denominate  technically  the  naturismus  of  the  mind,  whether  of  the  individual  or 
of  the  community.  The  second  stage  of  mental  evolution,  in  which,  as  Mr.  James 
so  aptly  expresses  it,  "my  intellectual  day  does  eventually  break,"  is  then  what  I  de- 
nominate the  scien-tismus ;  and  what  Mr.  James,  in  his  blind  technicality,  calls  "so- 
ciety" near  the  close  of  his  article  (blind,  I  mean,  in  the  sense  that  he  does  not 
sufficiently  distinguish  it  as  a  technicality),  and  there  defines  to  be  the  reconciliation 
of  that  hell  of  the  passions  and  this  heaven  of  the  intellect  and  the  spirit,  is  what  I  deno- 


f 


Love^   Marrlafjc,  and  Divorce.  1 1 1 

minate  the  arlismus  of  the  mental  evolution.  I  require  thr^m  technicalities  — 
naturismtu,  tcientifmus,  and  artumus —  for  univerKoiogical  purpi>!(Cii,  because  the  same 
principles  and  the  same  distribution  of  pritu-iples  occur  in  all  thu  other  sciences 
aa  well  as  in  social  science,  and,  conH<-<iuently,  in  tiituations  when-  terms  derived 
from  social  distinctions  would  l>e  (pute  inadini><^il>lt>.  I  think,  also,  that  these 
terms,  understood  and  familiari/ed  in  this  sjierial  application  of  ihem,  will  con- 
siderably facilitate  our  mutual  understanding  of  each  other  in  this  discussion. 

At  the  next  turn  of  Mr.  James's  statement  his  conception  and  mfxle  of  expres- 
sion are  so  peculiar  that  I  venture  to  attempt  to  make  my  understanding;  of  them 
understfKxl  by  the  rea<ler.  Although  he  has  tleHcrilx-d  the  pri(jr  ond,  aM  I  think  I 
may  say,  the  ohjeclive  state  of  the  afTectional  or  .srniinn'iital  part  of  the  mind,  and 
its  stage  of  evolution,  as  a  state  of  bondage,  and  denied  to  it  any  fre<'dom,  he  now 
speaks  of  it  as  a  .state  of  freedom  to  art,  or,  as  I  think  we  may  say,  of  projective 
freedom;  and  he  contrasts  with  this  a  newer  state  of  the  affections  which  is  inte- 
rior, or  I  think  wo  may  say  subjective,  to  which  he  attributes  another  kind  of  what 
he  denominates  freedom,  —  ^* freedom  to  suffer  or  to  be  acted  upon,"  —  a  freedom  to 
receive  mental  impressions  ond  revolve  them  subjecti\*ely.  whi<h  we  might  j>erhaps 
call  a  receptive  freedom.  "My  life  is  not,"  he  says,  "any  longer  outwardlv,  but 
altogether  inwardly  constituted  or  energized,  and  disdains  any  outward  responsi- 
bility," etc.  This  distinction  is  certainly  well  taken  to  complete  the  metaphysical 
view  of  the  unismus  of  mind  by  presenting  its  objective  and  subjective  sides;  but 
neither  ha-s  it  anything  to  do  with  the  civic  relations  of  individuals  oa  covered  by 
the  doctrine  of  free  love.  Mr.  James  then  arrives  at  and  proceeds  to  define  what 
he  suppos<'3  to  be  the  point  of  disagreement.  This  subject  I  have  aln'ady  con- 
sidered, and  have  shown  that  ho  is  wholly  mistaken,  and  that  no  such  disagn-<v 
ment  exists.  I  will,  in  a  few  words,  however,  state  wherein  there  are,  or  probably 
are,  some  palpable  differences  between  us. 

I  have  already  done  this  in  part,  in  saying  that  Mr.  James's  statenjent  of  the 
crude  freedom  of  individuals  is  altogether  too  lax  for  us.  Free  love  with  me  — 
and  it  is  generally  safer  to  state  one's  own  views  than  to  assume  to  r»»present  any 
considerable  numl>er  of  i>crsons  —  is  merely  an  extension,  or  a  special  application 
rather,  of  Josiali  Warren's  doctrine  of  the  Sovereignty  of  the  Individual,  which,  when 
stated  in  full,  is  always  accompanied  by  a  prohibition  of  encroachment.  It  is, 
therefore,  merely  a  doctrine  of  the  mutual  adjustment  of  relations  in  fr»x»dom  l»©- 
tween  parties  nnitually  «lesirous  of  doing  right,  and  who  recognize  their  mutual 
equality  as  a  basis.  It  has  no  application,  therefore,  to  undevelop»'d  parties  in- 
capable of  the  mutual  application  of  principles;  to  the  unjust  or  thone  who  arc  not 
disposed  to  live  on  principle;  or,  in  fine,  to  any  but  those  who  know  enough  and 
are  goo«l  enough  to  apply  and  live  by  the  principle.     In  '■>  all  the  rest  of 

mankind  I  am  free  to  regulate  my  life  according  to  th<'  •  of  the  case,  in 

the  absence  of  this  readiness  on  Uieir  part  to  adopt  and  act  ui<un  a  principle  of 


11  "2  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

right,  regulating  freeiloin.  If  I  were  the  Czar  of  Russia,  I  shouhl  be  just  as  free, 
unhindered  liy  any  theory  I  hold  of  human  rights,  to  enact  and  enforce  stringent 
laws,  according  to  my  judgment  of  the  stage  of  development  in  that  country,  as  if 
I  held  no  sociological  doctrines  whatsoever.  As  a  political  ruler,  with  power  and 
responsibility  for  social  order,  I  should  not  be  trammelled  or  hampered  by  soci- 
ology' or  ethics,  beyond  the  legitimate  claims  of  one  sphere  of  affairs  to  influence 
every  other  sphere.  I  might  then  and  there  enact  laws,  and  be  engaged  in  enforc- 
ing them,  which  1  might  be,  here  and  now,  engaged  in  breaking  and  encouraging 
others  to  break.  Even  here,  as  a  legislator,  I  might  favor  and  help  enforce  laws 
politically  which,  as  a  social  agitator,  I  would  treat  with  contempt  and  try  to  in- 
duce the  people  to  despise.  I  am  no  silli/  doctrinaire,  propounding  theories  of  life 
which  are  wholly  impracticable,  but  simply  a  social  scientist,  dealing  in  social 
solutions.  J.  Stuart  Mill,  if  he  had  understood  ^Ir.  Warren  or  me,  would  never 
have  ^Titten  his  work  on  "Liberty"  so  loosely  worded  in  limiting  the  right  of  the 
State  as  to  have  laid  himself  open  to  the  raking  fire  of  James  Fitzjames  Stephen ; 
and  so  Mr.  James,  with  a  right  study  of  the  subject,  would  not  state  the  non- 
accountability  of  crude  offenders  so  wildly. 

Allow  me  to  explain  upon  a  branch  of  the  subject  which  I  am  here  led  into,  and 
which  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  treated  upon.  There  are  three  quite  dis- 
tinct, almost  wholly  different  spheres  of  collective  human  affairs  to  be  considered, 
which  we  may  call:  1,  The  ordinary  politico-civic  sphere,  mainly  practical  and  only 
slightly  scientific  —  the  unismus  of  this  series;  2,  The  sociologico-ethical  sphere,  which 
is  rigorously  scientiGc,  adjusting  by  principles  and  exact  definitions  the  social  re- 
lations of  individuals  in  society,  in  so  far  as  they  desire  to  know  and  are  ready  to 
regulate  their  mutuality  by  exact  knowledge, — the  sphere  of  Warrenism,  and  by 
derivation  of  f ree-loveLsm,  —  the  duismus  of  this  series ;  3,  The  transcendental  ethical 
sphere,  partly  practical,  spontaneous,  natural;  partly  scientific;  but,  in  the  major 
part,  sentimental  or  artismal ;  regulating  the  individual  conduct  relating  to  others 
in  foro  consciencice,  or  as  regards  the  individual's  approbation  or  disapprobation  of 
his  own  such  conduct,  in  view  of  his  own  respect  for  the  Most  High,  —  which  last 
is  the  trinismus  of  this  series. 

It  is  in  this  last,  or  trinismal  sphere  that  we  find  Mr.  James  usually  speaking, 
but  not  always.  Sometimes  he  is  talking  in  the  unismus.  But  of  the  duismus, 
the  scientific  and  truly  regulative  sphere,  he  really  knows  notliing,  and  is  sure  to 
misunderstand  anybody  who  speaks  in  it.  He  is  not  always,  I  say,  in  the  third 
sphere.  When  he  talks  of  " progiessively  enlarging  the  grounds  of  divorce,"  he  is 
talking  in  the  first  sphere  —  politico-civic  —  like  an  ordinary  mortal,  and  refers  to 
actual  legislation,  to  take  place  in  legislature,  congress,  or  parliament;  but  when, 
a  few  paragraphs  further  on,  he  talks  of  "the  non-accountability  to  one's  fellow-men 
for  the  exercise  of  one's  appetites  and  passions,  because  of  one's  own  bondage  to  the 
same,"  he  has  suddenly,  and  it  would  seem  unconsciously,  vaulted  up  into  the  tri- 


Xorc,  Marriufje,  anil  Divorce.  113 

iiismus.  He  i\r>ei  not  mean  that  it  would  «lo  for  any  iiiumlane  legUlature  to  con- 
duct ^'oveniiiKMit  on  tliut  iirincipli',  l>ut  only  tliat  in  ethical  htrictneiis  there  iit  no 
holding  ground  for  the  flukes  of  the  anchor  of  coiuicieace. 

When,  in  the  nfiddle  field  between  these  extremen,  Mr.  Jainefl  attempts  to  state 
our  doctrine,  he  wholly  fails,  for  want  of  the  habit  of  Rcientific  exactitude.  "  Your 
doctrine,  if  I  rightly  understand  it,  is,"  he  says,  "two-fold,  nanudy:  First,  that 
men  are  de  jure  exempt  from  outward  liability,  which  is  liability  to  other  men  for 
the  indulgence  of  their  apivtitcs  and  pa.s.sions;  hccond,"  etc.  Now  thia  is  not  my 
doctrine,  but  a  perfect  caricature  of  my  doctrine,  in  bo  far  aa  I  have  ever  pro- 
pounded any  doctrine  on  the  subject.  I  do  not  hold  that  men  are  de  jure  exempt, 
etc.,  except  conditionally,  tlie  condition  Iwing  that  they  know  how  to  abstain,  and 
will  abstain,  from  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  other  people,  —  the  sovereignty 
of  the  individual  [only]  at  his  own  co.ity  which  makes  a  \\ holly  different  thing  of 
the  whole  doctrine. 

The  free  lover  rejoices  in  any  relaxation  of  civil-marriage  stringency,  any  facili- 
tation by  legislation  of  the  laws  of  divorce  such  as  Mr.  James  desires;  but  we 
choose  to  base  our  social  agitation  on  the  higher  law  of  individual  riijhln,  leavi: 
dividuals  to  battle  with  their  legal  restrictions  as  they  Iwst  may;  as  the  bIk... 
ists  chose  to  do,  rather  tlian  to  ayitate  for  special  ameliorations  of  the  condition  of 
the  slaves,  l^iis  is  in  fact  the  only  difTirence  between  Mr.  James  and  us  qua  this 
particular  question  of  the  method  of  arriving  at  more  practical  freedom. 

I  have  said  that,  as  a  mere  politician  or  judicial  functionar}-,  I  might  myself  be 
engaged,  on  the  lower  ground  of  expfditiicy  and  practical  necessity,  in  enacting 
and  enforcing  laws  which,  as  a  sociological  writer  and  agitator,  I  should  be  insti- 
gating people  to  set  aside  and  defy  ;  and  I  will  ad«l  that,  in  this  latter  capacity,  I 
might  be  engaged  in  vindicating  for  individuals  or  the  jieople  freedom  to  act 
in  ways  in  which,  if  they  did  act,  I  shoul.l  wholly  and  energetically  condemn  them 
upon  the  still  higher  ground  of  transcendental  ethics;  and  I  hold  still  further  that 
any  one  who  cannot  umlcrstand  and  adjust  himself  to  all  these  complexities  is  in- 
competent to  be  integrally  a  sociologist. 

The  rise  of  a  higher  social  doctrine  in  the  community  is  like  the  rise  of  a  new 
tissue  in  the  development  of  the  bo<ly.  It  finds  the  ground  preoccupied  by  the  old, 
which  it  has  to  crowd  aside  to  make  room  for  itself.  Hence  the  necessity  for  a 
conflict;  and  the  same  individual  may  find  himsi-lf  related  at  one  moment  to  the 
old  in  a  way  to  enforce  duties  ui>on  him  of  that  order,  and  tlie  next  moment  to  the 
new  in  a  similar  manner.  Mrs.  Wo«iilhull,  who  agitates  for  fri'e  love,  and  the  judge 
and  jury  who  try  her,  and,  if  the  evidence  and  the  law  require  it,  condemn  her  and 
send  her  to  BlackwelTs  Island,  are  both  right;  and  Mrs.  Woo<lhull,  if  empaneled 
on  a  jury  to  try  one  like  herself,  might  have,  in  good  con.science,  to  join  in  such  a 
verdict  against  another  doing  the  same  as  she  may  have  l>een  charged  with  doing. 
When  people  go  to  war,  there  is  no  use  in  whining  over  the  fact  that  they  are  li> 


114  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

able  to  get  hurt ;  and  a  doubleness  of  duty  in  different  directions  is  one  of  the  com- 
monest events  of  life.  I  simply  rejoice  that  just  in  this  age,  and  here  in  America, 
and  perhaps  in  a  few  other  countries,  the  old  civilization  has  grown  so  rotten  and 
enfeebled  that  the  agitators  for  the  new  civilization  have  the  advantage,  and  can 
defy  .ind  conquer  with  less  of  martyrdom  than  most  other  reforms  have  demanded. 

Now,  fortunately,  the  sociologico-ethical  doctrine,  that  which  scientifically  de- 
lines  the  rights  of  individuals,  reciprocally,  in  their  mutual  relations,  sexual  and 
otherwise,  is  merely  a  doctrine  reyulating  reciprocity^  and  is  not  binding  on  the 
conscience  of  the  other  party  the  moment  the  reciprocity  fails;  and  that  moment 
the  advocate  of  the  doctrine  is  free  to  fall  back  upon  the  lower  law  and  fight  it  out 
there ;  although,  as  a  magnanimous  policy,  he  may  think  it  best  not  to  avail  him- 
self of  his  privilege,  —  as  in  political  economy  the  free-trader  is  only  bound  by  his 
principles,  on  grounds  of  justice  and  equity,  to  inaugurate  free  trade  with  nations 
who  will  reciprocate,  but  he  may,  as  magnanimity  or  far-reaching  expediency, 
deem  it  best  not  to  stop  there.  So  the  Declaration  of  American  Independence  de- 
clares certain  rights  to  be  inalienable,  but  it  proceeds  inmiediately  to  provide  cer- 
tain punishments,  consisting  of  depriving  individuals  of  the  exercise  of  those  very 
rights.  What  is  meant  is  that  the  rights  are  conditionally  inalienable,  the  condition 
being  that  those  who  claim  them  shall  come  with  clean  hands  to  do  so;  not  at  the 
same  instant  infringing  the  same  rights  in  others.  The  South,  in  the  war,  de- 
manded, on  the  ground  of  right,  to  be  let  alone,  but  demanded  it  for  the  purpose 
of  enslaving  others,  and  so  lost  her  standing  in  court  to  make  that  plea,  while,  yet, 
the  plea  remained,  abstractly,  perfectly  good.  So  I,  as  a  free  lover,  am  not  bound 
to  accord  the  freedom  to  regulate  their  own  conduct,  relieved  from  my  interference, 
to  any  but  those  who  can  and  will,  in  good  faith  and  chivalric  courtesy,  leave  every 
other  person,  their  dearest  lovers  included,  equally  free. 

As  regards  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  they  have  no  right  whatever  under  this  doc- 
trine "  which  -white  men  are  bound  to  respect."  I  may  deem  it  magnanimous  or 
educationally  expedient  to  recognize  as  free  lovers,  and  to  agitate  in  behalf  of, 
those  who  are  only  half  born  into  the  doctrine ;  but  they  have  no  claims  on  my 
con.science  to  do  so.  Apart  from  this  compact  of  equitable  amity  with  a  handful 
of  people  who  are  morally  and  intellectually  competent  to  appreciate  a  scientific 
gauge  of  equity,  I  am  just  as  free,  in  conscience,  if  I  deem  it  expedient,  as  tiie 
veriest  old  fogy,  to  help  in  the  suppression  of  every  deviation  from  the  rigors  of 
the  law  or'of  Mrs.  Grundy.  I  am  not,  in  other  words,  under  any  conscientious  in- 
ability to  behave  as  a  good  citizen  on  the  lower  politico-civic  ground.  But  I  deem 
the  new  doctrine  so  infinitely  better,  so  fast  as  the  world  can  be  brought  to  regu- 
late its  conduct  by  a  scientific  principle,  instead  of  force,  that,  as  an  agitator  for 
the  higher  truth,  the  mere  legislation  of  the  hour  takes  no  rank  in  the  comparison; 
and  if  I  find  myself  entangled  in  the  meshes  of  the  contradiction,  I  must  take  my 
risks  and  fight  it  through  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  individual  case. 


Love^  Marriage,  arid  Divorce.  115 

We  coiiio  now  to  tlie  still  liigher  sphere,  to  the  transcendental  ethical  sphere, 
where  Mr.  James  coininonly  tliinks  and  writes  and  fij,'ures.  It  i.s  here  tliat  he  usu- 
ally talks  of  marriage,  and  by  marriage  in  this  sense  I  understand  him  to  mean : 
whatsoever  r'ujht  conjunction  of  the  counlerparliny  /actors  of  life;  either  as  abstract  prin- 
ciples,  or  in  the  realm  of  concrete  personality.  Marriage  in  this  sense  is  what  I  mean 
by  trinism,  the  reconciliative  harmony  of  oppositcs.  The  idea  is  Swedenborgian, 
is  Jan)esian,  is  universological.  In  it  I  b^'lieve  most  religiously;  for  it  I  work 
most  assiduously;  to  it  I  woulil  lead  all  mankind;  and  in  the  effort  to  that  end  I 
recognizo  and  fellowship  Mr.  James  most  heartily.  He  may,  and  I  think  probably 
would,  define  this  sjiiritual,  ethical,  metaphysical  marriage  in  a  technical  and  some- 
what narrow  doctrinaire  sense  which  I  should  reject;  and  here  I  think  is  another 
point  of  our  real  differences;  and  here,  to  make  a  clean  breast  of  it,  I  think  he  may, 
perhaps,  have  something  yet  to  learn  from  me.  If  ho  accejtts  the  above  definition, 
and  if  he  will  leave  the  questions:  What  are  the  counlerjiartiny  factors  of  life,  and 
Tl7(a<  is  a  riyht  adjustment  of  them,  open  to  free  ."scientific  investigation,  not  im]>osing 
on  the  inquirer  any  doctrinaire  interpretation  of  them,  we  can  start  fair;  and  I  shall 
have  many  words,  when  the  time  conies,  to  utter  about  this  matter. 

But  it  seems  to  me  a  pity  that  Mr.  James,  with  such  a  meaning  of  marriage, 
should  never  notify  his  readers  when  he  passes  to  and  fro  between  it  and  the  com- 
mon vulgar  idea  of  statute  marriage;  the  confusion  so  induced  sometimes  seeming 
to  make  of  his  writings  a  brilliant  kaleidosco|)e  of  mysticism,  instead  of  a  Ixnly  of 
intelligible  instruction.  For  exami)le,  take  this  sentence:  "Thus  your  doctrine 
has  both  a  negative  or  implicit  force,  as  addres.sed  to  the  making  marriage  free  by 
progressively  enlarging  the  grounds  of  divorce;  and  a  positive  or  explicit  force, 
as  addressed  to  the  making  love  free,  by  denying  its  essential  subordination  to 
marriage." 

The  word  marriage  is  here  u.sed  in  two  senses  as  if  they  were  one;  first,  in  the 
ordinary  sense,  and,  second,  to  mean  the  true  rational  adjustment  of  the  relations 
of  love;  and  it  is  against  this  last,  which  he  identifies  first  (at  least  as  a  factor) 
with  "society"  (meaning  the  highest  ideal  well-being  and  true  order  of  society), 
and  then  with  "God,"  the  ideal  personal  author  of  this  system  of  true  order,  that 
Iklr.  James  supposes  the  free  lovers  to  be  in  revolt  (in  addition  to  their  revolt,  in 
which  he  concurs,  against  the  outward  restrictions  of  enforced  marriage  in  Uio 
lower  sense). 

The  only  solution  I  ran  think  of  (at  first  I  could  think  of  none)  of  this  seem- 
ingly gratuitous  assunqition  is  this:  Free  lovers  do  often  sj»eak  of  their  relative 
contempt  for  marriage  as  compared  with  the  claims  of  genuine  affection,  and  Mr. 
James,  having  the  fixed  idea  in  his  mind  of  marriage  in  this  higher  w^nsse,  as  tlie 
permanent  meaning  of  the  word,  has  attributed  to  them  n  meaning  which  he  would 
have  had,  had  ho  used  similar  lant;nage.  But  he  .•^hould  know  that  they  are  not 
piping  in  the  high  transcendental  key  in  which  he  habitually  sings  or  talks.     They 


116  Jjove,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

mean  merely  that  love  is  for  them  the  higher  law  over  statute  marriage  without 
love.  They  are  not  then  talking,  or  thinking,  in  the  least,  of  denying  that  duty  in 
a  thousand  forms  may  be  a  higher  law  still  over  love;  that  is  to  say,  over  the  sen- 
suous indulgences  of  mere  love :  duty  to  one's  self  if  the  health  is  to  incur  injury, 
duty  to  one's  higher  spiritual  nature  if  it  is  to  be  marred,  duty  to  one's  children  if 
their  destiuy  is  involved,  duty  to  previous  innocent  companions  and  parties  impli- 
cated in  one's  act,  duty  to  society  at  large  and  its  well-being,  duty  to  God  or  divine 
law  written  in  the  soul  demanding  integral  and  distributive  justice;  duty,  in  a 
word,  to  the  Most  High,  or  that,  whatsoever  it  is,  which  is  the  highest  in  each  indi- 
vidual soul.  Some  persons,  to  be  sure,  deny  duty  altogether  on  a  ground  of  me- 
taphysical subtlety,  saying  that,  when  they  know  what  is  right,  that  is  their 
attraction  and  its  doing  not  from  duty  but  from  love ;  but  this  is  merely  another 
mode  of  stating  the  common  idea. 

The  mere  agitators  for  free  love  are  for  the  most  part  those  who  have  not  risen 
to  the  consideration  of  the  ulterior  questions  involved  in  the  true  uses  of  freedom, 
any  more  than  slaves  struggling  for  freedom  enquire  what  line  of  conduct  they 
will  pursue,  or  what  considerations  they  will  abide  by  in  deciding  their  conduct, 
when  free ;  and  it  is  a  pure  gratuity  to  assume  that  they  have  decided  against  any 
moral  course  whatever. 

Pope  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Eloise  the  following  startling  words:  (Pope's 
Poetical  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  125.) 

How  oft,  when  pressed  to  marriage,  have  I  said, 
Curse  on  all  laws  but  those  which  love  has  made ! 
Love,  free  as  air,  at  sight  of  human  ties, 
Spreads  his  light  wings,  and  in  a  moment  flies. 
Let  wealth,  let  honor,  wait  the  wedded  dame, 
August  her  deed,  and  sacred  be  her  name ; 
Before  true  passion  all  those  views  remove ; 
Fame,  wealth,  and  honor  I    What  are  you  to  love? 
The  jealous  God,  when  wo  profane  his  fires, 
Those  restless  passions  in  revenge  inspires, 
And  bids  them  make  mistaken  mortals  groan, 
Who  seek  in  love  for  aught  but  love  alone. 
Should  at  my  feet  the  world's  great  Master  fall, 
Himself,  His  throne.  His  world,  I'd  scorn  them  all ; 
Not  Caesar's  empress  would  I  deign  to  prove ; 
No,  make  me  inistrcss  to  the  man  I  love  ; 
•   If  there  be  yet  another  name  more  free, 

Moro  fond  than  mistress,  make  me  that  to  thee! 

O  liappy  state!  when  souls  each  other  draw, 

Wlien  love  is  liberty,  and  nature  law; 

All  then  is  full,  jiosscssing  and  possessed, 

No  craving  void  left  aching  in  the  breast; 

E'en  thought  meets  thought,  ere  from  the  lips  it  part. 


Lc/ve^   Mtin'iu(ji\,  and  Divorce.  117 

And  each  warm  wish  springs  mutual  from  the  heart. 
This  sure  is  bliss  (if  bli.^s  ou  earih  there  be), 
And  once  the  lot  of  Abclurd  uiid  uio. 

The  most  exalted  pythoness  of  free  love  of  our  day  baa  never  said  more  or  gone 
farther  than  this:  and  yet  a  few  pages  farther  on  in  thb  poem,  thb  same  rebel 
against  marriage  in  the  lower  sense,  as  by  the  laws  of  man,  is  found  struggling 
ili'sperately  witli  her  own  sense  of  rii,'lit  in  the  higher  court  of  conscience,  or  as  ru- 
hited  to  ethical  truth;  which,  with  her,  held  the  form  of  obedience  to  God.  Head 
the  following  in  tliis  vein  : 

Sh.  wretch!  believed  the  spouse  of  Gml  In  vain, 

Confessed  within  the  slave  of  love  and  man. 

Assist  me,  heaven!  but  whence  arose  that  prayer? 

Sprung  it  from  piety,  or  from  despair? 

E'en  here,  where  frozen  charity  retires, 

Love  linds  an  altar  for  forbidden  fires. 

I  ought  to  jjrieve,  but  cannot  as  I  ouf;ht ; 

I  mourn  the  luver,  not  lament  the  fault ; 

I  ^iew  my  crime,  but  kindle  wi^h  the  view. 

Repent  old  pleasures,  and  solicit  new ; 

Now  turned  to  heaven,  I  weep  my  past  offence. 

Now  think  of  thee,  and  curse  my  innocence. 

Of  all  afflictions  taught  a  lover  yet, 

"lis  sure  the  hardest  science  to  forget! 

How  shall  I  love  the  sin,  yet  keep  the  sense, 

And  love  the  offender,  yet  detest  the  offence? 

How  the  dear  object  from  the  crime  remove, 

Or  how  distinguish  penitence  from  love? 

Unequal  task !  a  passion  to  resign. 

For  hearts  so  touched,  so  pierceil,  so  lost  ub  mine. 

Ere  such  a  soul  regains  its  peaceful  state, 

How  often  must  it  love,  how  often  hate? 

How  often  hope,  despair,  resent,  forget. 

Conceal,  disdain,  —  do  all  things  but  regret! 

But  let  heaven  sei/.o  it,  all  at  once  'tis  fireil ; 

Not  touched,  but  wrapt ;  not  wcakonetl,  but  inspired  I 

O  come!     O  teach  me  Nature  to  subdue. 

Renounce  my  love,  my  life,  myself  —  and  you; 

Fill  my  fond  heart  with  God  alone,  for  He 

Alone  cau  rival,  can  succeed  to  thee. 

Nobody  can,  in  fact,  escape  his  own  worship  of  the  Most  High.  I  pn'fcr  Uii^  to 
the  t<'rin  God  as  etiually  orthoilox  and  as  less  implicated  with  existing  dogtna. 
The  Most  High  of  KK^ise  was  the  Catholic  conception  of  a  personal  God.  The 
Most  High  of  Mr.  ,Ianies  i.<»  a  jwrfect  law,  ultimating  in  a  i>erfect  ideal  social  ad- 
justment which  he  sometimes  culls  "society"  and  sometimes  r;i'-  "'hhI";  and 


118  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

the  element  of  deference  to  this  perfect  law  in  the  settlement  of  our  love  affairs  is 
•what  he  calls  "marriage,"  as  the  couiiterparting  and  major  element  in  this  ques- 
tion, as  compared  with  mere  love.  No  free  lover  has  ever  denied  this,  because 
hitherto  they  have  not  been  called,  as  a  body,  even  to  consider  the  subject.  Indi- 
vidually, these  cases  of  conscience  are  arising  among  them  every  day;  and  if  Mr. 
James  will  write  so  that  they  can  understand  him,  I  will  venture  to  say  that  he 
can  find  no  other  public  so  ready  to  accept,  gratefully,  any  ethical  solutions  he  can 
furnish  them. 

"What  Mr.  James  supposes  is  that  they  are  a  body  of  people  whose  Most  High, 
or  highest  conception  and  object  of  devotion,  is  their  own  appetite  and  passional 
indulgences.  When  this  was  put  in  the  form  of  an  accusation,  I  resented  it  as  a 
gross  slander.  Reduced  to  the  proportions  of  an  honest  misapprehension,  I  hasten 
to  do  my  best,  by  a  laborious  effort,  to  remove  it;  and  I  assure  ]\Ir.  James  that  I 
know  no  such  class  of  people  as  he  conceives  of,  under  the  name  of  free  lovers. 
They  are,  indeed,  as  I  know  them,  among  those  farthest  removed  from  this  descrip- 
tion. They  cortsist,  on  the  contrary,  in  a  great  measure,  of  idealists  of  a  weak  pas- 
sional nature,  and  who,  for  that  reason,  could  not  bear  the  yoke  of  matrimony ;  of 
benevolent,  kindly  people  who  have  witnessed  the  misery  of  others  in  that  relation 
until  their  natures  revolted ;  and  of  speculative  thinkers  who  have  solved  or  are 
trying  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  social  relations  ;  and  it  is  on  these  grounds  that 
they  are  gradually,  and  just  now  pretty  deeply,  imbuing  the  whole  public  mind. 

What  Mr.  James  calls  in  one  way  society,  in  another  the  social  spirit,  again  GocTs 
life  in  my  spirit,  and  finally  God,  is  just  as  important  and  just  as  paramount  in  my 
view  as  in  his ;  tliough  I  may  not  always  choose  to  adopt  any  of  these  modes  of 
expression,  and  may,  at  times,  rather  speak  of  my  ow^n  higlier  and  lower  nature 
instead.  I  do  not,  however,  object,  if  he  does  not  insist  and  seek  to  impose  a  spe- 
cial form  of  expression  of  a  thought  otherwise  essentially  the  same.  The  fact  that 
this  higher  life  is  mine  does  not  deny  the  fact  that  it  is  yours  also,  and  I  only  insist 
on  freedom  of  conception  and  expression  ;  and  the  distinction  between  our  nature 
and  ourselves  has  a  mystical  seeming  which  I  might  choose  to  avoid.  With  aright 
adjustment  of  the  technicalities  of  expression,  I  presume,  however,  that  there  is 
no  difference  here  between  Mr.  James  and  myself. 

What  he  says  of  suffering  is  wholly  good  or  monstrously  bad,  according  to  the 
farther  exposition  it  might  have ;  and  it  would  take  me  too  far  away  from  my  pre- 
sent purpose  to  follow  him.  I  simply  reserve,  as  the  lawyers  say,  my  bill  of  excep- 
tions. I  will,  however,  confess  that  I  am  not  conscious  of  sweating  so  hard, 
spiritually,  over  the  effort  to  be  good  as  Mr.  James  deems  it  requisite ;  and  either 
that  I  never  get  to  be  so  good  as  his  ideal  good  man  is,  or  else  that  it  comes  more 
natural  to  me.  Perhaps  I  was  sanctified  somewhat  earlier,  and  have  forgotten  my 
growing  pains. 

Yes,  1  do  hold  that  our  appetites  and  passions  are  a  direct  divine  boon  to  us,  etc., 


Lofve^  ^fni'iudfje^  and  Divorce.  119 

which  Mr.  James  denies  with  all  his  heart;  and  yet  I  lioKI  all  this  in  that  larger 
sense  that  Ikls  all  Mr.  JanK's's  distinctions  within  it, —  as  Col.  Benton  said  of  a 
certain  hill  in  Congress  that  it  had  "a  stump  sjK.'cch  in  the  belly  of  it."  I  aflirni 
every  one  of  his  atnrniations,  in  spirit  if  not  in  terms,  and  only  negate  \\\a  negations. 

Mr.  James  next  proceeds,  after  the  preparation  thus  made,  to  characterize  free 
love,  philosophically,  as  free  hell.  The  opening  sentence  of  this  part  of  Mr.  James's 
comnmnication  is  in  itself  utterly  ambiguous,  for  the  reason  that  it  ia  imi>ossible 
to  tell  from  it  whether  in  "emancipation  from  marriag<M:onstraint"  he  means  by 
marriage-constraint  the  outer  constraint  of  the  statute  law  or  that  release,  which  he 
has  imagined  to  be  the  demand  of  the  free  lovers,  from  the  divine  order,  whatever 
that  may  be,  of  the  love  relations  of  mankind.  But  light  is  thrown  upon  the  subject 
farther  on,  and  it  api>ears  that  he  means  this  last,  for  lie  contracts  the  •♦emancipa- 
tion "  from  it.  under  the  name  of  hell,  with  "■that  mnrriage-love  of  the  sexes  by  which 
heaven  has  always  been  approj>riately  symbolized." 

Now  by  marriage  as  appropriately  .symbolizing  heaven  he  undoubtedly  means 
nothing  other  than  harmoniously  adjusted  love  relations  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  law;  by  which  is  meant,  again,  nothing  other  than  the  highest  law  in  the 
universe  applicable  to  the  subject.  He  may  assume  in  his  thought  that  this  high- 
est law  is  such,  or  such  ;  but  that  does  not  affect  the  (piestion,  as  he  may  l»e  either 
right  or  wrong  in  the  assumption;  and  he  can  hardly,  I  think,  reject  my  defini- 
tion.s,  which  transcend  all  si)ecial  renderings  of  the  law.  This  highest  law  must  in 
turn  be  ascertained  by  intuition,  by  inspirational  impression,  by  experience,  by 
reason,  and,  in  fine,  in  the  highest  degree,  by  the  absolute  science  of  the  subject 
superadded  to  and  modilving  the  results  of  all  the  other  methods, —  by,  in  a  wonl, 
whatsoever  faculties  and  means  the  human  mind  possesses  for  compassing  a  know- 
ledge of  the  highest  truth,  especially  in  this  sjihere  of  affairs.  I>ovo  —  an  a  btb- 
8TANCE  or  subject-matter,  appropriately  regulated  by  the  true  and  highest  law  of  its 
relations  —  as  a  form  —  this  Kubstauce  and  this  form,  again,  happily  unitetl  or  n)arried 
to  each  other,  is  what  Mr.  James  is  here  characterizing  as  tnarrltr/e-lorf  and  as 
heaven;  and  nobody  can,  I  think,  appropriately  object  to  this  characterization. 

So,  on  the  other  hand,  tin;  divorce  or  sundering  of  this  suhstattcf  and  this/orwi 
(it  is  a  little  queer  to  call  that  idea  an  "emancipation,"  but  no  matter  so  long  as 
we  can  guess  at  what  is  meant)  may,  with  the  same  appropriateness,  extending  the 
symbol,  be  denominated  hell.  I  conceded  at  once,  in  my  previous  answer,  that 
what  Mr.  James  understood  us  to  propound  as  doctrine  would  U*  a  dix'trine  of 
devils;  and  I  suppose  that  sort  of  thing  is  rightly  characterized  as  lu-ll.  But  I 
have  now  to  show  that,  as  I  think,  Mr.  James  do<'s  not  quite  understand  hinjsolf 
on  this  subject;  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  correct  him,  an,  if  he  is  going  to  conduct 
us  to  the  sulphurous  abyss,  I  want  he  should  go  .straitjht  to  hell,  and  n«»t  deviate  a 
hair's  breadth  to  the  right  nor  the  left. 

I  have  pointed  out  two  senses  in  which  Mr.  James  has  used  the  word  marriage. 


120  Love,  Marriage,  and  Divorce. 

There  is  involved  here  a  third  meaning  so  subtle  that  T  presume  he  is  entirely  un- 
aware of  it.  Marriage  is  liere  in  one  breath  contrasted  with  love,  as  the  opposite 
partner  in  a  partnership  of  ideas,  and  in  the  next  breath  it  is  used  to  mean  love 
conjoined  toilh  marriage  {marriage  being  now  used  in  the  former  sense), — that  is  to 
say,  to  mean  the  partnership  itself.  It  is  as  if  Smith  were  about,  in  the  first  place, 
to  be  fairly  treated  in  relation  to  Jones  in  settling  the  affairs  of  the  firm  of  Smith 
&  Jones,  but  that,  surreptitiously,  the  assumption  were  glided  in  that  Jones  is  the 
firm  of  Smitii  &  Jones,  aud  that  poor  Smith  has  now  to  reckon  with  the  whole 
firm  against  him. 

Read  the  following  extract  in  the  light  of  this  criticism :  "  I  am  only  making  an 
honest  attempt  intellectually  to  characterize  it  [free  love].  And  as  by  the  mar- 
riage-love [love  and  true  marriage  conjoined]  of  the  sexes  heaven  has  always  been 
appropriately  symbolized  to  the  intellect,  so  I  take  no  liberty  with  thought  in  say- 
ing that  hell  is  no  less  appropriately  symbolized  by  love  as  opposed  to  marriage. 
I  repeat,  then,  that/ree  love,  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  marriage,  means,  to  the  phi- 
losophic imagination,  free  hell,  neither  more  nor  less,"  etc.  It  -will  appear  at  once, 
on  a  close  inspection  of  this  extract,  that  marriage,  the  last  two  times  it  is  here 
used,  is  used  as  synonymous  with  marriage-love,  —  as,  in  other  words,  a  partnership- 
idea,  including  love  as  one  of  the  partners,  —  and  in  that  case  love  is  no  more  an 
appropriate  idea  to  contrast  with  it  than  Smith  is  the  appropriate  antithet,  in  the 
case  supposed  above,  of  Smith  &  Jones.  The  true  antithetical  idea  of  a  partner- 
ship is  the  individuals  as  individuals,  and  both  of  them  equally,  out  of  the  partner- 
ship. So  the  true  antithet,  in  idea,  of  marriage  (meaning  love  in  marriage  and 
marriage  in  love  conjointly)  is  love  and  marriage,  as  a  substance  and  a  form,  mu- 
tually contrasted,  divorced  or  separated  from  each  other;  and  then,  if  the  word 
free  is  used  to  mean  their  separation  (or  emancipation)  from  each  other,  it  is  just 
as  applicable  to  marriage  as  one  of  the  partners  as  it  is  to  love  as  the  other  part- 
ner ;  and  it  is  not  alone  free  love  vrhich  is  hell,  but  it  is  love  divorced  from  true 
relational  adjustment  (here  called  marriage)  and  true  relational  adjustment  (that  is, 
the  relational  adjustment  which  would  be  true  if  love  were  present)  this  last  without 
love,  which  are  both  and  equally  the  symbol  of  hell.  In  other  words,  love  without 
marriage  and  marriage  without  love  are  hell,  — the  reader  remembering  that  we  are 
not  now  talking  of  statute  marriage,  but  of  true  sexual  adjustments";  and  love 
married  to  true  sexual  adjustments,  or  vice  versa,  is  heaven. 

No  philosophical  free  lover,  any  more  than  any  other  philosopher,  would  object, 
I  presume,  to  these  statements;  and  this  is  what  Mr.  James  means,  or  should  mean, 
in  the  premises. 

"We  are  all  aware  that  love,  as  mere  unsatisfied  desire,  is  hell,  or  misery ;  and 
satisfied  upon  a  low  plane  it  is  still  hell  to  one  who  has  conflicting  superior  desires 
unsatisfied;  and  when  the  satisfaction  is  complete  in  kind,  if  the  adjustments  are 
imperfect,  conflicting,  or  disharmonious,  in  whatsoever  sense,  the  result  is  still  hell; 


Love,  3farrlar/c,  and  Divorce.  121 

and  this  authorizes  Mr.  James  to  call  free  lore  hell,  he  having  taken  the  y/ord  free 
to  mean  divorced  or  sundered  from  true  or  harmonic  adjustment;  but  how  he 
could  ever  have  thought  any  set  of  people  to  be  the  partisans  of  this  particular 
kind  of  hell  is  still  very  surprising.  On  the  other  hand,  he  might  just  as  rightly, 
and  is  even  required  by  consistency,  to  say  free  marriage,  in  the  sense  of  mere  for- 
mal adjustment  divorced  from  love  as  its  appropriate  infilling  Hul»stancc,  and  then 
to  denounce  it  as  hell  of  another  kind;  which  we  all  know  it  to  be.  It  is  this  lat- 
ter hell  which  free  lovers  are  especially  engaged  in  combatting;  and  it  is  that  hell 
of  devils  and  this  hell  of  Satans  (Swedenborgian)  between  which  I  insist  that  Mr. 
James  shall  hold  even  balance ;  in  other  words,  that  he  shall  go  slraiyht  to  hell. 

But  Mr.  James's  ladder  of  argument,  thougli  there  is  a  round  loose  occasionally, 
is  still  a  ladder  conducting  him  up  to  a  culmination  of  magnificent  philosophical 
statement.  Free  love,  as  hell,  is  still  with  hini  by  no  means  altogether  disreput- 
able. Hell  itself  is  getting  up  in  the  world.  It  is  an  equal  factor  in  the  genesis 
of  all  things,  an  equally  honorable  combatant  in  the  grand  final  battle  of  princi- 
ples, the  end  of  which  is  not  defeat  for  either,  but  a  trinismal  reconciliation  where- 
by the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  are  or  are  to  be  constituted.  All  this  is 
universological  and  grand  and  true,  and  it  rejoices  me  to  have  so  distinct  an  an- 
nouncement of  the  doctrine,  in  this  connection,  from  Mr.  James.  I  gladly  concede 
also  that  he  has  derived  only  the  materials  for  this  doctrine  from  Swedenborg,  and 
that  the  form  of  it  is  new  and  equally  original  with  Mr.  James  and  myself,  and 
perhaps  some  other  thinkers  of  this  age.  At  all  events,  I  am  in  full  fellowship 
with  him  upon  this  central  point  of  what  I  must  undoubtedly  believe  is  the  final 
and  integral  philosophy  of  mankind. 

I  should  not,  it  is  true,  base  my  faith  in  a  final  philosophy  upon  Swedenborg's 
personal  experiences  in  the  spirit  world,  nor  upon  any  mere  historical  averment  of 
events  which  may  have  transpired  in  any  world,  but  upon  what  to  me  is  far  se- 
curer, the  universological  laws  and  principles  of  all  being.  Still,  I  have  no  con- 
tempt for  Swedenborg's  experiences,  whether  they  prove  to  have  been  subjective 
or  objective  phenomena;  and  the  rendering  which  Mr.  James  gives  of  the  event 
alluded  to  is  altogether  sublime  and  alike  true  whether  the  event  literally  and  ob- 
jectively occurred  or  not.  If  the  date  of  these  spiritual  espousals  was  so  far  back, 
it  would  seem  that  the  effective  promulgation  of  the  fact  has  l>een  reserved  for  this 
and  the  coming  age.  The  new  divine  manhood  has  aa  yet  made  but  small  exter- 
nal progress  in  the  world.  The  germ,  nevertheless,  exists,  and  it  is  taking  on, 
every  day,  increased  proportions.  The  most  fatal  mistake  that  soldiors  make  in 
war  is  to  fire  upon  detachments  of  their  own  army,  and  it  is  all-important  that 
they  discover  and  retrieve  the  blunder.  The  figure  is  commendod  to  Mr.  James's 
consideration.     Verhum  sap.  sat. 

StEPIIKN   rEAKI.   .XNDRF.WS. 


LIBEKTY. 

A  Fortniohtly  Organ  of  Anarchistic  Socialism. 

THE  PIONEER  OF  ANARCHY  IN  AMERICA. 
Benj.  R.  Tucker,    -      j -     Editor  and  Publisher. 


ONE  DOLLAR  A  YEAR. 


Liberty  insists  on  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  and  the  just  reward 
of  labor ;  on  the  abolition  of  the  State  and  the  abolition  of  usury  ;  on  no 
more  government  of  man  ])y  man,  and  no  more  exploitation  of  man  by 
man  ;  on  Anarchy  and  Eciuity. 

Complete  tiles  of  Volumes  III.,  IV.,  and  V.  of  Liberty,  handsomely 
bound  in  cloth,  are  for  sale  at  S2.00  each. 

Address:  Liberty,  P.  O.  Box  3366,  Boston,  Mass. 

FOUR   RADICAL  NOVELS 

TREATING    OF 

THE    IML^RHrAaE    QUESTION. 


WHAT'S  TO  BE  DONE.  A  Nihilistic  Romance.  By  N.  G.  Tchernycliewsky. 
Witii  a  Portrait  of  the  Autlior.  Translated  by  Benj.  R.  Tucker.  Written  in 
Prison.     Suppressed  by  the  Czar.     In  cloth,  .$1.00.     In  paper,  75  cents. 

THE  STORY  OF  AN  AFRICAN  FARM,  liy  Ralph  Iron  (Olive  Schreiner). 
A  romance,  not  of  adventure,  but  of  the  inti-llectual  life  and  growth  of  young 
English  and  German  people  living  among  the  Boers  and  KalHrs;  picturing  the 
mental  struggles  through  which  they  passed  in  their  evolution  from  orthodoxy 
to  rationalism  ;  and  representing  advanced  ideas  on  religious  and  social  questions. 
A  work  of  remarkable  power,  beauty  and  originality.  375  pages.  Price,  in 
cloth,  00  cents. 

THE  WING  OF  AZRAEL.  By  Mona  Caird,  the  authoress  whose  articles  in 
the  "  Westminster  Review  "  aroused  so  great  an  interest  in  the  question  of 
marriage  among  the  English  people.     305  pages.     Price,  30  cents. 

FRANCES  :  A  Story  for  Men  and  Women.  By  Florence  Finch-Kelly.  221  pages. 
Price,  50  cents. 

Address :  BENJ.  R.  TUCKER,  Box  3360,  Boston,  Mass. 


LIBERTY'S    LIBRARY. 

For  any  of  the  following  Works,  address,  BEKJ.  B.  TUCKER,  Box  3366,  Boston,  Mass. 

TIIK  WIND  AND  THK  WHIRLWIND.  A  poem  worthy  of  a  place  in 
(•VL'i-y  man's  lihrary,  hih!  c'specially  liitcn'Stlny  to  all  victims  of  Brltlsli  tyranny 
ami  misniK'.  IJy  "WlllVid  Scawtii  IJhint.  A  rf<l-line  edition,  printed  beauti- 
fully, in  larf^e  type,  on  tine  paper,  and  bound  in  parcluncnt  covers.  Elegant 
and  clieap.     ;}2  pa;;cs.     I'rjfe,  :i.'»  cents. 

THK  RADICAL  RKVIKW:  Vol.  I.,  hanasomely  l)ouncl  in  cloth,  and 
containliii;  over  sixty  K>says,  Poems,  Translations,  and  Uevlews,  by  the  m<jst 
prominent  radical  writers,  on  industrial,  llnancial,  soiiul,  literary,  scicutlllc, 
philosopliical,  ethical,  auil  rcli;(ious  subjects.  82S  pa;;jes  octavo.  Price,  $^.00. 
Sinirle  ntimix-rs,  .«tl.l.'>. 

Till':  FALLACIKS  IN  -PROGRK.SS  AND  POVKRTY."  A  I)oKl  at- 
tack on  the  position  of  Henry  Geor;;e.  Written  for  tlie  pe<jplc,  and  lus  revolu- 
tionary in  sentiment,  and  even  more  radical  than  "  Pro;:ress  and  Poverty" 
itself.     Bv  William  Hanson.     lOl  pa.^'cs,  cloth.     Price,  81.00. 

NATURAL"  LAW:  or,  tlie  .Science  of  Justice.  A  Treatise  on  Natural 
Law,  Natural  Justice,  Natural  Kitrhts,  Natural  Liberty,  and  Natural  Society, 
showin?.C  tliat  all  lej^isiation  whatsoever  is  an  absurdity,  a  usurpation,  aud  a 
crime.     Hv  Lvsander  Spo<»ner.     Price,  10  cents. 

AN  ANARCIlisT  ON  ANARCHY.  An  eloquent  exposition  of  the  be- 
liefs of  Anarchists  l)y  a  man  as  eminent  in  science  a.s  in  reform.  By  Elbte 
Kcclus.  Followed  by  a  slietch  of  the  criminal  record  of  the  author  by  E. 
Vauirhan.     Price,  10  cents. 

SO  THK  RAILWAY  KINGS  ITCH  FOR  AN  KMPIRK,  DO  THKY? 
By  a  "Keil-lldt  Striker,"  of  Scranton,  Pa.  A  reply  to  an  article  by  William 
M.  Grosvenor  in  the  Intirnntionul  lirvitw.     Price,  10  cents;  jier  hundred,  S4.(X). 

INTKRNATIONAL  ADDRKSS :  An  elnhorute,  c(.niprelie:isive,  and 
very  entertaiiiiu;;  Exposition  of  the  principles  of  Tiic  Workin;;-people's  luter- 
national  .Vssociation.     By  William  B.  Greene.     Price,  15  cents. 

TIIK  WORKING  WO^IKN:  A  letter  to  tlie  Rev.  Henry  W.  Foote, 
Minister  of  Kinj^'s  Cliapel,  in  Vindicati<in  of  the  Poorer  Class  of  Bo>ton  Work- 
ing-Women.    Bv  William  B.  Greene.     Price,  l.">  cents. 

ANARCHISM  OR  ANARCHY?  A  Discussion  between  William  K. 
Tillin<?hast  and  Benj.  U.  Tucker.  Prefacitl  by  an  Open  Letter  to  Uev.  William 
.1.  Potter.     Sent  on  receipt  of  a  postaije  stamp. 

A  FK.MALK  NIHILIST.  A  thrillinir  sketch  «)f  tlie  character  and  ad- 
ventures of  a  tyiiical  Nihilistic  heroine.  By  Stepnlak,  author  of  "  I'nder- 
^rround  IJussia."     Price,  10  cents. 

MUTUAL  15ANKIN(;  :  Showing  the  Radical  Deficiency  of  the  cxi.sting 
finulatini,'  .Medium,  ami  how  Interest  on  Money  can  be  Abollsheil.  By  Wil- 
liam H.  tJreene.      Price,  2r>  cents. 

CAPTAIN  ROLAND'S  PURSK:  How  it  is  Filled  and  how  Kmptied. 
By  John  Kuskin.  The  llrst  of  a  projected  series  of  Labor  Tracts.  Supplied 
at  37  cents  per  hundred. 

SOCIALISTIC,  CO.M.MUNISTIC,  MUTUALISTK  ,  AND  FINANCIAL 
Fraffments.     Uv  William  H.   (Jreene.     Price.  SI.'.'.'.. 

PROSTITUTION  AND  THK  INTKRNATIONAL  WOMAN'S 
L»'ai,'ue.     Bv  lleiirv  Kduer.     Price,  l.'i  cent.s. 

WHAT  IS  FKKKDOM,  AND  WHKN  AM  I  FRKK?  By  Henry 
Applcton.     Price,  15  cents  ;  two  copies,  25  cents. 


PROUDHON'S    WORKS. 


WHAT  IS  PROPERTY  ?  Or  an  Inquiry  Into  the  Principle  of  Right  and  of 
Government.  By  1'.  .1.  I'roudhon.  Trefaced  by  asketeiiof  Promllion's  Lifeand 
Works,  and  containuii^  as  a  Frontispiece  a  fine  steel  enj^raving  of  the  Author. 
Translated  from  the  French  by  IJenj.  11.  Tucker.  A  .systematic,  thorough,  and 
radical  discussion  of  the  institution  of  property,  —  its  basis,  its  history,  its 
present  status,  and  Its  destiny,  —  together  with  a  detailed  and  startling  expose 
of  the  crimes  which  it  commits,  and  the  evils  which  it  engenders.  500  pages 
octavo.     Price,  cloth,  .$3.50;  full  calf,  blue,  gilt  edges,  -SG.oO. 

SYSTEM  OF  ECONOMICAL  CONTRADICTIONS:  Or  The  Philosophy 
of  Misery.  Py  P.  J.  Proudhou.  Translated  from  the  French  by  Benj.  11. 
Tucker.  This  work  discusses,  in  a  style  as  novel  as  profound,  the  problems  of 
Value,  Division  of  Labor,  Machinery,  Competition,  Monopoly,  Taxation,  and 
Providence,  showing  that  economic  progress  is  achieved  by  the  appearance  of 
a  succession  of  economic  forces,  each  of  which  counteracts  the  evils  developed 
by  Its  predecessor,  and  then,  by  developing  evils  of  its  own,  necessitates  its 
successor,  —  the  process  to  continue  until  a  Qnal  force,  corrective  of  the  whole, 
shall  establish  a  stable  economic  equilibrium.  4G'J  pages  octavo.  Price,  cloth, 
$3.50;  full  calf,  blue,  gilt  edges,  §6.50. 

Address  :  BENJ.  R.  TUCKER,  Box  3366,  Boston,  Mass. 

THE   SCIEISTGE   OF   SOCIETY. 

By  STEPHEN"  PEARL  ANDREWS. 

This  work,  long  out  of  print,  is  now  republished  to  meet  a  demand  which  for 
a  few  yeai-s  past  has  been  rapidly  growing. 

It  consists  of  two  parts,  as  follows  :  — 

Part  I. —The  True  Constitution  of  Government  in  the  Sovereignty  of  the 
Individual  as  the  Final  Development  of  Protestantism,  Democracy,  and  Socialism, 

Part  II. — Cost  the  Limit  of  Price:  A  Scientitlc  Measure  of  Iloncstj'  in  Trade, 
as  one  of  the  Fundamental  Principles  in  the  Solution  of  the  Social  Problem. 
Price,  in  cloth.  One  Dollar.  Address  the  Publisher :  Sauau  E.  Holmes,  Box 
3366,  Boston,  Mass. 

ANARCHISM:   Its   Aims   and  Methods. 

By  victor  YARROS. 

An  address  delivered  at  the  first  public  meeting  of  the  Boston  Anarchists'  Club, 
and  adopted  by  that  organization  as  its  authorized  exposition  of  its  principles. 
With  an  appendix  giving  the  Constitution  of  the  Anarchists'  Club  and  explanatory 
notes  regarding  it.  30  pages.  5  cents;  6  copies,  25  cents;  25  cojnes,  $1;  100 
copies,  $3.  Address :  Benj.  11.  Tuckek,  Box  3366,  Bo.stou,  Mass. 


/ 


L 


250] 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •   Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


|i| 


MGV012007 


MAY  0 1  2008 


9 


3   1158  00094 'U'n'- 


2507 


,,i!S;,^Ol^T>;fRN  REGIONAL  LIBRARVc.r,, 


AA    001064  399 


